When Faith Meets Science
The article discusses the relationship between faith and science, and how they can coexist and complement each other through reason and integrity in the pursuit of truth and good life/relationships.
1. A Fictional Dialogue on Faith and Science
Here is the fictional dialogue between the characters, Pastor Jeff and Sheldon from a popular TV show:
Pastor Jeff: Sometimes people say to me, "Pastor Jeff, how do you know there's a God?" and I say it's simple math. God either exists, or He doesn't. So let's be cynical. Worst-case scenario, there's a 50-50 chance, and I like those odds.
Sheldon: That's wrong...
Pastor Jeff: Well, Sheldon, why don't you come on up here and tell me how I'm wrong...
Sheldon: You've confused possibilities with probabilities. According to your analogy, when I go home, I might find a million dollars on my bed, or I might not. In what universe is that 50-50?
Pastor Jeff: So, what do you think the odds are that God exists?
Sheldon: I think there's zero. I believe in science.
Pastor Jeff: So you don't think science and religion can go hand in hand?
Sheldon: Science is facts. Religion is faith. I prefer facts.
Pastor Jeff: I understand that. Here's a cool fact for you. A lot of famous scientists believed in God—Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, even Charles Darwin.
Sheldon: So Darwin's right about God and wrong about evolution?
Pastor Jeff: Now you're getting it... let's give it up for Sheldon, everybody. What a good sport!
Sheldon (thinks to himself): But I wasn't a good sport. At that moment, I vowed to come back the following Sunday and destroy Pastor Jeff...
Let’s see a few points on how Pastor Jeff and Sheldon are both right/wrong, and explore the question of faith and science coexisting and thriving in the right way.
2. Confusion of Possibilities With Probabilities
Sheldon is right that Pastor Jeff incorrectly equates possibilities with probabilities. Just because there are two possibilities (God exists, or God doesn't) does not mean that each has an equal probability of 50-50. Probabilities are based on evidence and reasoning, not simply on the number of possible outcomes. So, Sheldon is right that finding a million dollars on your bed is possible, but it is highly improbable. You cannot assign equal probabilities to the existence of God without further evidence or reasoning.
Pastor Jeff's use of a 50-50 probability is overly simplistic and does not reflect the nuanced debate surrounding the existence of God.
Sheldon is equally wrong in his quick conclusion that there are zero odds of God's existence, without exploring, as faith too can be built on top of science, and also involves reasoning, logic, deduction, preponderance of various probabilities, and human experience.
3. Appeal to Authority
Pastor Jeff uses an appeal to authority by citing some well-known scientists who may have believed in God (itself questionable). There are many well-known scientists who do not believe in God as well. Such an appeal to authority without pointing out the validity of the reasoning involved is a logical fallacy. For example, one scientist may believe in God thinking that it is a safe bet out of fear, just in case. Or maybe she/he is a Zionist, or Christian/Islamist/Hindu/Buddhist religious nationalist, or be religious for social/cultural/political reasons. Another scientist may be in self-denial about the odds of God's existence for all the wrong reasons, like his/her personal moral lifestyle, career convenience, shortsightedness, fear of a atheistic authorities/governments etc.
These are invalid reasons, regardless of the source. However, if some explanation is given regarding the validity of the reasoning involved by these thinkers/scientists (on why scientific endeavors and faith can legitimately coexist), then there is some merit in the argument.
4. Faith and Science Coexisting
4.1. Two Domains Built on Top of Each Other
Science deals with the material/observable universe. To be able to explore that is an absolute privilege (Genesis 1:26-28). There are questions of human interest/relevance, like why anything exists at all, is there any meaning/purpose to life, is there anything called morality, human responsibility that we should strive for, is there any ultimate meaning in love/relationships/goodness, is there any ultimate accountability for our choices/actions, is ultimate justice, is there anything called a soul, do the initial conditions for the emergence of life include rationality, etc. These are the primary focus of faith, mostly over and above the domain of science (or domains built on top of each other).
Faith should not contradict science but must be built on top of it and beyond it. Faith allows the possibility of a rational/moral/relational Being who is the source of everything we see and know. And hence the possibility of such a Being communicating/interacting with His creation as well.
In this video, LT Jeyachandran talks of four questions that deal with a kind of knowledge:
How does something come out of nothing?
How does life come from non-life?
How does the reason come from non-reason?
How does morality come from non-morality?
LT Jeyachandran explains how God fills all these gaps. Firstly, God is eternal whereas nature is finite so because He exists forever, He can create something out of nothing. Secondly, because He is the living God, He can create life. Thirdly because he is the Logos, so reason can come from logos. Fourthly, He is a God of Holiness, and so when He makes you and me in His image, He makes us capable of moral decisions
4.2 Integrity in Science and Faith
Since science is a domain given to humanity, it must be done with integrity, and the findings must be accepted (with the caveat that there can be corrections/changes and will be a continue to find more).
Likewise, the pursuit of the questions that faith tries to address should be done with integrity and loyalty to truth (and not be swayed by things like the politics of religious identity etc).
4.3. Potential Conflict and Reconciliation Between Faith and Science
While the primary focus of the pursuit of science and faith are different, there is definitely overlap. Truth in all domains and fields must be consistent logically, empirically, experimentally, experientially etc.
For example, a literal interpretation Genesis 1-11 could pose some problems on questions such as the age of universe, evolution of life forms etc. It may seem to conflict with relativity theory, cosmology, earth science, geology, even the history of the ancient world that we can find etc. This may call for some amount of not-literal view.
Here is a book that explores historicity and interpretation of Genesis 1-11. This video talks about how one may view questions related to the age of the universe and causality.
4.4. Darwin Could Be Right About Both Evolution and God?
Back to Sheldon’s question, could Darwin be right about both evolution and God? Scientific findings on the Age of Universe, Evolution, and faith can coexist. So yes, Darwin could be right about both evolution and God (assuming he did believe in Goid).
4.5. Dawkins, Hitchens, Collins et al
Here is a conversation between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, the American physician-scientist who discovered the genes associated with a number of diseases and led the Human Genome Project (Director of the National Institutes of Health, National Human Genome Research Institute.
The conversation refers to the gravitational constant, strength of the electromagnetic force, cosmological constant, nuclear force, masses of fundamental particles like protons and electrons, etc. The argument is that if these constants were even slightly different, the universe would not support life.
For example, the cosmological constant is believed to be fine-tuned to within 1 part in 10 to the power of 120. If this constant were even slightly different, the universe would have either expanded too quickly for galaxies to form or collapsed back on itself, making life impossible.
From the conversation between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins:
Francis Collins: I am not arguing that the evolutionary process is incapable of generating complexity. I think it totally is. You and I are in the same place here... but it happened because of the laws of physics... where did those come from?
Richard Dawkins: I believe that's very profound... I mean if somebody was going to convince me of the need for a God, it would be there, not in my own field of biology. When you get onto the physics... the origin of the physical constants that's getting close to a good argument... things like the speed of light, gravitational constant, strong and weak force, most physicists agree that if you if you change any of those constants by even a very small amount then we don't come into existence. The universe doesn't come into existence. They have to be like that in order for galaxies to form for stars to form, for chemistry to form, and for the prerequisite for life to evolve... so that's the nearest approach to a good argument…
Christopher Hitchens expresses similar sentiment here and here.
5. Sheldon Answers His Own Question!
In this scene, Sheldon’s Mom finds herself struggling with faith.
Sheldon says: "Can I help, maybe I could provide a fresh perspective... did you know that if gravity were slightly more powerful, the universe... if gravity were slightly less powerful, the universe would fly apart. There'd be no stars or planets. The gravity is precisely as strong as it needs to be, and if the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the strong force wasn't 1% life wouldn't exist, What are the odds that would happen all by itself? The precision of the universe at least makes it logical to conclude there's a Creator.
5.1. Perfect Mom for Me. What Are the Odds of That!
When Sheldon’s mom says her problem is not logic but the heart, Sheldon adds: "There are 5 billion people on this planet, and you're the perfect mom for me. What are the odds of that!".