Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th May 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Faith in science



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

A depressing number of your correspondents portray the difference between science and religion as a battle between reason and faith (Letters, passim). Nothing could be further from the truth.
Despite the fact that on Earth huge explosions destroy everything in their vicinity, scientists believe that a Big Bang created the Universe out of nothing. Like the concept of God, this claim can never be proved or disproved, and thus has to be sim...



The full article contains 170 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 March 2008 8:21 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

A McBay,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 05:28:35
Mr Grant says "It takes much more faith – belief without proof – to be a scientist than it ever will to be religious."

I think he gets himself confused here by misunderstanding proof and evidence. Religious faith is belief without evidence. Without evidence, there can never be any proof.

But if I believe in evolution, there is at least a huge and growing volume of evidence for it, such that as far as many human beings are concerned, this evidence now constitutes sufficient proof that it happens. There is evidence that supports the Big Bang theory of the universe's creation, but there is no evidence that "god did it".

Faith is about blind belief despite any and all contradicting evidence, or a complete lack of evidence. That is what makes it irrational. Belief with supporting, observable and verifiable evidence requires considerably less faith than belief with no evidence whatsoever. It can never be described as irrational.

2

Gdgy,

27/03/2008 07:55:26
Scientists don't believe anything of the sort...they think that these hypotheses are the best explanations for the evidence available - so it takes no "faith" to be a scientist. AND not all scientists have the same "faith"
I'd get your facts right before committing your ideas to a national forum and try not to assume that your way of thinking applies to others.....
3

richard l,

edinburgh 27/03/2008 08:02:14
Mr Grant is wrong in most of his points.

"the solar system "coalesced" out of a swirling mass of gas – although no gas has ever been observed turning into a rock." Is intriguing though - can anyone explain?
4

Maximus,

Roberton 27/03/2008 08:32:16
#1. Morning Mr McBay.

I'm not sure about the proof vs evidence argument you propose. I don't know much about meanings of words, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt - if you believe they are different, then so be it.

I think the point about the so-called religion vs sceince debate is that there has to be an acceptance of uncertainty on both sides.

As a scientist myself if undertaking an experiment employing a theory, then I must state "according to this model or theory". The Big Bang is one such theory. Many see it as fact.

As a Catholic I also accept that God created the universe. At the risk of starting another debate on my reasons for that - let's just say I believe as an article of my faith. It is not blind, as you would suggest. Part of my belief lies in what has been handed down to me over successive generations as Sacred Tradition ... akin to your family traditions which help set boundaries and guidance. Another part lies in what I see around me. There is a revelation that all living things and all the Earth and Universe are linked, there is an interdependence, a need to co-exist. Which I believe is intended by God and together with the Bible, historical records of Jesus, and personal experience constitutes evidence, and therefore proof.

But because I wasn't present at the point of creation I cannot say for certain how it was created. Nor do I wish to. It is not important to me - but I appreciate it is important to some.

What is frustrating is that one person, whether religious or secular or otherwise, can say "This is how it is". I think you see this too according to your comment on the Big Bang theory.


5

Maximus,

Roberton 27/03/2008 08:36:16
#3, As stated above, I'm willing to accept that a solar system coalesced from a swirling mass of gas over millions of years. There is something very beautiful about that picture, a picture that does not exclude the presence of a Creator - a patient Creator.
6

Infidel,

Dar ul harb 27/03/2008 09:04:32
What a load of b0ll0cks! Every single statement Grant makes is either demonstrably false, or a grotesque distortion. I'll come back after I've had my breakfast and do a quick demolition job.

Maximus 5:
I am reminded of Laplace, who developed the basic idea of condensation out of a swirling nebula. When Napoleon remarked that he had not included God in his explanation, Laplace replied with the famous remark that he had no need of that hypothesis.

Now I'm hungry. Back later.
7

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:25:20
Alan Grant sounds like a complete lunatic.
I'm afraid some mockery is in order.

Would anyone of sound mind really miss the point so much as to say
"They believe the Sun burns from the inside out, although every fire on Earth burns from the outside in."

I mean, really, has the man read nothing on the sun at all? Has he any idea of physics, chemistry, geology, etc? Patently not.
8

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:41:34
A quick google suggests there is an Alan Grant in Moniaive, and he is a famous 2000AD comic book writer. So is he taking the mickey, or is he really serious?
9

Isonomia,

Lenzie 27/03/2008 09:46:29
Some questions can't be answered. Sensible people simply don't pursue answers where none are available, but for those who insist on an answer there is religion which can give an answer to any question.
10

A McBay,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:52:00
Morning Maximus.

I discount "tradition", and you should too. There are countless creation myths from around the world that have been handed down by "sacred tradition", but they are still fanciful myths. As I understand it, in your church you uphold the doctrine that Sacred Tradition holds equal authority to Holy Scripture. But in the Gift of Scripture, the UK's Catholic bishops warn that the bible is historically imprecise and scientifically inaccurate, and certainly shouldn't be taken literally. You would be well adsvised to apply the same caveat to Tradition.

Scientists don't claim to have the truth. They put forward hypotheses that are tested by observation and experiment, and these stand or fall on that basis. Believers, on the other hand, just claim they have the absolute and inviolate Truth - no evidence, other than, apparently, old stories. No doubt the ancient Greeks thought they had the Truth with their belief in Zeus and Aphrodite, perhaps on the basis of "tradition" as you define it. This is not evidence, nor is it proof.

As Scotland's most famous philosopher - Billy Connolly - says in his version of Max Earhmann's Desiderata

"Avoid people who know the answer. Keep the company of people who are trying to understand the question."
11

Neil,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 10:08:14
What a very silly letter.

Though trees & paper are different colours those who think paper comers from trees rather than from RS McColls must be depressed that some branches died to publish this letter.
12

Infidel,

Dar ul harb 27/03/2008 10:17:08
The big bang was not an explosion. That is only an analogy found in the popular press. An explosion hurls matter and energy out into space that is already there. The big bang was an expansion of space/time itself.

Rocks forming from gas? Wrong. In the early solar system they formed from dust, which fused into chondrules – the tiny blobs of melted rock that make most meteorites. Vapour to liquid to solid (and sometimes directly from vapour to solid) and vice versa phase changes are routinely observed for all sorts of materials. Rocks are no different. Heat a rock enough and it will melt, and ultimately vaporise (as at atomic test sites). As it cools it will condense back again.
Discs of dust are commonly observed around young stars. Their spectroscopic properties indicate they are composed of dust, not gas, and some have indications of planets forming in them. All in accordance with computer models and laboratory experiments in vacuum ovens making rocks from dust.

The sun does not burn. Burning is a chemical process. The sun is hot because of thermonuclear fusion in its core. It is only in the core that temperature and pressure are high enough for this, hence it is in the core that the heat is generated.

The dual particle/wave nature of light has been known for a century, with ample experimental evidence to support it. As for waves requiring a medium to travel through, the diffraction and interference phenomena that illustrate the wave-like properties of light can be done in a vacuum.

Every one of the above is based on hard observational and experimental evidence. Not faith. Grant’s scientifically illiterate claims are based on faith and breathtaking ignorance.
13

A McBay,

27/03/2008 10:39:07
6 & 12#

Precisely what was in that breakfast, Infidel? I'll have a pint of what you've been drinking.....
14

Maximus,

Roberton 27/03/2008 11:12:55
#10, I'm gald your quotes these days are avoiding French, and therefore the need for accents.

On the point of Sacred Tradition - I agree that the Bible cannot be taken literally in some places, nor does it describe historically accurate details. I don't believe it was ever meant to be. Besides there is more than one account of creation in the Bible - which one is true? The creation narratives describe something more.

More accurately Sacred Tradition is a source of revelation, but only with the Bible and the Magesterium. However only the Bible is inspired by God, and as such the Bible stands above that of Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium. This is often misunderstood, especially amongst those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura - who forget the role of Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium in agreeing the canon of the Bible.

I also agree that Scientists do not claim to know the truth - but I'm afraid some do with certainty. This I would argue is not true to the practice of science.

It is a shame however that you reject Tradition, and by that I assume you do not mean practices, but rather the act of handing down a teaching. How then do explain your own knowledge? Was it revealed in an instant?

15

Maximus,

Roberton 27/03/2008 11:14:41
#10, Sorry meant also to say that I try to keep the company of those who are searching for the truth.
16

Maximus,

Roberton 27/03/2008 11:20:58
#6, And I am reminded of CS Lewis - "Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."
17

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 11:58:53
A point about science is that it will work even if you don't think it does. Mr Grants computer would stop working if things required belief to work, given that computer technology relies upon physics which is directly related to how we know about the sun and its workings.
18

A McBay,

27/03/2008 12:26:46
10# Maximus

"Only the Bible is inspired by God"

Ah, it's just "inspired". That means it's wide open to whatever and whoever thinks god wants and means. Not a very reliable process, especially if you are looking at interpretations made by people who at the time still thought the earth was flat.

But the Koran we are told is the literal word of God. Which revelation should we believe? Perhaps we should believe the Guru Granth Sahib, or the Upanishads, or the Mormon's Golden Plates? Why wouldn't I believe in the Scientologists' Xenu, if it is handed down as 'tradition' for a couple of thousand years?

Of course all our knowledge comes from revelation (note the lower case r) of sorts. But if someone "reveals" to me that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, do I simply accept that, even if it's been handed down by "tradition"? Does my personal pursuit of "truth" and knowledge not entitle me to investigate and evaluate that claim and the evidence (or lack of it) and reject it if I want to?


19

Maximus,

Roberton 27/03/2008 13:12:47
#18, Mr McBay,a s you will know this is a hard subject to keep to a few paragraphs so I will try to cover the mountain tops.

As I said, all three must be taken together - Bible, Sacred Tradition (the act of handing down a teaching), and the Magesterium (the teaching office), when looking for direction on matters of faith and morals. Such matters are never developed in isolation, but as a group - this is the application of common sense as described in Matt 16-18 and Acts 1 and 15.

I don't think people did think the Earth was flat - Job, Isaiah and Proverbs talk of a circle (sphere in the original Hebrew), which predates the Greek determination of a spherical earth. Besides kings and queens througout the ages have used an orb to denote the Earth dominated by the cross of Christ. I find the notion that my christian (and jewish) ancestors thought the earth was flat insulting. It is clear they did not.

As for the other religions, look at how the books were developed and who wrote them. Apply a bit of that reasoning you mention so often.

And yes you should investigate any claim, as I do. You have free will and can choose to reject or accept based on what you believe to be the correct course of action.

As described above, my decision to accept that God created the Universe and all things in it, including you and me, is driven by many things. There has to be a personal acceptance.

We can agree to differ, but this should not be at the expense of everything we have in common.
20

Maximus,

Roberton 27/03/2008 13:20:22
#17, My experience with Windows would suggest otherwise.

I think however you are getting the faith argument the wrong way round. I don't have to believe in God for Him to exist. However, He has to believe in me for me to exist. As the hymn goes "My own belief in you, is only a shadow of your faith in me".
21

MonoApe,

27/03/2008 13:33:58
What Infidel said.

It's a never-ending source of fascination how otherwise intelligent people are satisfied to end their quest for knowledge with "god did it".

Also, Alan Grant is clearly suffering from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect, a common affliction amongst the religious.
22

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:58:15
#20- perhaps you could think of it this way instead- even if you have no faith or belief in quantum stuff as described by quantum physics, it will still operate and there will be no difference to your life. However, judging by what many religious people say, if you fail to have the correct religious belief or behaviour, things will go differently either now, or when you are dead.
23

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 27/03/2008 14:11:53
A McBay,Edinburgh

'Faith is about blind belief despite any and all contradicting evidence, or a complete lack of evidence. That is what makes it irrational. '

This is nonsense straight from Richard Dawkins. I am sure that if you gave the matter proper thought, you would agree.

Faith is sometimes rational, sometimes irrational. It is sometimes irrational to believe things in the face of contradictory evidence and sometimes not. Dogmatic generalisations are not appropriate here. If scientists did not often believe in their theories long before there was evidence (and often when the available evidence speaks strongly against them) science would be less advanced than it is.

Where is the evidence that beliefs without evidence are irrational? Is this a matter of faith? If so, is the faith blind?

24

WB,

St Andrews 27/03/2008 15:34:31
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1667

Found the above article rather stimulating. Perhaps some will accuse A C Grayling of being a pop-philosopher :-)
25

A McBay,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 15:45:39
23#

I stand corrected. I should have qualified the statement by saying "Faith in a supernatural deity is about blind belief....etc".

That is not being dogmatic, that is factual. There is no occasion when faith in the existence of a supernatural deity for which there is not a shred of evidence can be described as rational. To suggest there is, means that it is 'rational' to have faith in the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden, or that it is rational for the Egyptians to believe in Osiris, or for the Pagans to believe in Baal.

Maximus 19#

Yes, I agree with you that we have to agree to differ, and that our differences should not be at the expense of everything we have in common. But in the context of embryology bills propsed by a democratically elected Government, that we differ does not give 'believers' the right to proscribe scientific endeavour in accordanced with their narrow views, and to ride roughshod over all others. The Vatican can tell Catholics not to use the remedies that the research provides if it wants too, or tell Catholics they should not participate in or work in that research area, but it should not prevent the reasearch being carried out for the benefit of others.
26

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 27/03/2008 17:09:01
A McBay

'There is no occasion when faith in the existence of a supernatural deity for which there is not a shred of evidence can be described as rational.'

This is untrue. Again, in the fashion of Dawkins and Grayling, you are presenting off-the-cuff, false dogmatic assertions as if you were expressing well established philosophical principles. Belief in the supernatural is not necessarily irrational.

Sometimes, lack of evidence in support of a proposition is in itself evidence that the proposition is false. For instance, if there is no evidence that my house was ablaze last night or no evidence that there are pennies in the piggy bank, one might reasonably conclude that my house was not on fire last night and that the piggy bank contains no coins. We know from experiece what would count as evidence that my house was on fire and what would count as evidence that the piggy bank contains coins. We know from experience that if my house had been on fire, the blaze would have left evidence and we know from experience that if the piggy bank contained coins, it would make a noise when shaken.
However, we do not know from experience that, if God exists there would be evidence on the planet earth of His existence. We do not know from experience what, if there were evidence of His existence, it would be. Hence we cannot claim that we know that God does not exist on the supposed grounds that there is no manifest evidence of His existence. Perhaps there is evidence of HIs existence and we fail to recognise it as such. Perhaps God is such that HIs existence leaves no trace on earth.

27

macmorrisey,

Lanarkshire 27/03/2008 20:53:27
Hugh

Using an argument like that you should be representing Tommy Sheridan. Your arguments are always entertaining but I'll stick to the balance of probabilities based on available evidence.
28

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 27/03/2008 21:30:52
macmorrisey,

Thank you for your kind comments.

I do not think that one can choose between the proposition that God exists and the proposition that God does not exist on the basis of probability theory. One would need knowledge of the number of universes that exist and the number of universes that exist which have Gods in order to know what the probability is that God exists in our universe. We lack such knowledge.

In any case, the improbability of the occurrence of an event is not evidence that the suggested event in question did not occur. That is the fallacy behind the sort of 'evidence' given by Professor Meadows in the cot-death cases. Improbable things happen. Their improbability is not evidence that they did not occur. For instance, it is very improbable that a particular mother would have more than two children who died naturally of cot deaths. Nonetheless, if a mother has two children who die of cot deaths, the improbability of the occurrence is not evidence that the deaths were not natural.

Looking forward, one might say that it is improbable that a particular person will win the lottery. However, the improbability of winning the lottery is not in itself evidence that Mr X from Coventry did not win the lottery. In fact, Mr X from Coventry did win it.

29

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 27/03/2008 22:50:46
macmorrisey,

macmorrisey,

I do not think that people reason about matters of fact in terms of probability. For instance, consider the proposition that the earth is more or less spherical. We do not suppose that this is, on the balance of the evidence, probably true. We believe it and are justified in believing it because it coheres with a number of other propositions we believe and with other experiences we have. We accept or reject clusters of beliefs, not isolated propositions.

The belief that the earth is more or less spherical coheres, for instance, with the belief that photographs taken of the earth from space show the world consistently to have a circular profile. If we head west and go far enough, we will come back from the west. At sea, boats on the horizon pop into vision not as entire tiny ships: what we see first is the tips of masts and funnels. These and other things cohere with the belief that the earth is more or less spherical.

I would suggest that people believe that God exists or believe that there are no gods because of the overall clusters of beliefs that they accept and the place they think belief in God has within that particular cluster. For instance, if people are attracted to, say, Christianity, they might accept belief in God as a corollary of the religion. If, say, people are repelled by religion - for what ever reason - they are less likely to believe in the existence of God.

I do not think that people evaluate in isolation the proposition that God does or does not exist. Probability plays no part in our thought processes in this area. Evidence plays a part only very indirectly
30

Itchy,

27/03/2008 22:58:50
# 23 "Faith is sometimes rational"

Wrong. Only reason is rational and it is the polar opposite of faith.
31

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 27/03/2008 23:14:32
Itchy,

'Only reason is rational and it is the polar opposite of faith.'

Is this a matter of faith or reason? If the latter, please specify the rationality involved.
32

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 27/03/2008 23:33:26
Richard Dawkins has made it very fashionable to make statements that have the underlying meaning: 'All beliefs that are not backed up by hard evidence are rubbish (apart from this one and any others that I happen to make).'
33

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 27/03/2008 23:47:33
#32

Sorry, I should have said:

Richard Dawkins has made it very fashionable to make statements that have the underlying meaning: 'All beliefs that are not backed up by hard evidence are rubbish (apart from this one and any others that I happen to express).'
34

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 10:11:12
*gets popcorn for the Itchy v Hugh fight*
35

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 28/03/2008 15:00:11
What, has Itchy run away? Colour me surprised!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.