Do we choose to 'believe' in either science or religion, evolution or creationism?
Surely there’s a problem with the semantics of the word ‘belief’? People commonly adopt the attitude that you can believe in evolution, or believe that God made everything instead. Many modern Christians have reconciled the two sensibly, and have come to the wise understanding that the two - God and evolution - are really the same thing. God has been used for centuries as a word to describe how things were created. Modern Christians reconcile it by understanding that evolution is the applied process at work, but they think that God was behind that process. That’s acceptable. It’s an acceptable compromise, which allows them to hang on to their faith at the same time.
But for those who cannot reconcile the two, the issue is still talked about as one of which you choose to believe in. Of course, the point is that science is not based on faith, it is not a matter for belief. It doesn’t require belief. People on my side of the camp often argue that science is based on facts, and religions aren’t, which is why they require an element of belief. Religious people often tell you this themselves, “that’s why we call it a belief, duh!”.
But here’s another common fallacy, in which people on my sciencey side of the camp need to be clearer. Science isn’t actually based on facts. Undisputable facts don’t exist. Nothing in science is certain, it’s based on testable hypotheses and experiments. Instead of talking about science as facts, we need to convey the truth, that everything in science is in fact an ongoing investigation.
Of course, people then revert to the argument of “well, if it’s on ongoing investigation, surely it’s still a matter for belief?” You choose to believe in the research or not. This is not necessary though, and that still doesn’t make it a matter for belief or not. This is because the real choice is beneath that, and is the decision of HOW you choose to think about things. You can either hedge your bets with the ongoing research, or hedge your bets with the thin air option a religion would suggest.
As a scientist I don’t ‘believe’ in any theory out there, but I may still argue their cases as the probable explanation, based on the research and knowledge accumulated thus far. As such, I resent it when people suggest to me that I have chosen to put my belief in science. I haven’t. I don’t put belief in anything. I strive very hard to remain as open-minded as possible, that applies equally as much when I’m reading scientific reports as when I look at religious opinions.
And this is the key thing we should be teaching society and children in particular - to question everything, and make up their own minds. But we also have to teach them that only things which have been investigated with a critical analysis are worthy of serious consideration, as theories, or ideas, or anything.
Dawkins has it right in his recent programme about faith schools. His way of explaining it to children is to say that there are there are things that are deserving of your belief, and things that aren’t. That there are good reasons and bad reasons to believe in things. Authority, tradition, and revelation (just because it feels good) are bad reasons for putting belief in something. Evidence, is a good reason.
This is a great way to explain it, but I would still like to see the word ‘belief’ applied less in terms of science, because it’s really got nothing to do with it and further perpetuates the false idea that the decision is one of choice, choose to believe in this or that. Critical analysis and mounting evidence (notice I say mounting, because it’s an ongoing investigation, remember, not fact), are really the only ways to sensibly think.
Here's a link to the very well made Dawkins programme about faith schools, although if you're outside the Uk and find it doesn't play in your country, I apologise. I don't know what channel 4's rules are about that.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/faith-school-menace/4od#3112619
But for those who cannot reconcile the two, the issue is still talked about as one of which you choose to believe in. Of course, the point is that science is not based on faith, it is not a matter for belief. It doesn’t require belief. People on my side of the camp often argue that science is based on facts, and religions aren’t, which is why they require an element of belief. Religious people often tell you this themselves, “that’s why we call it a belief, duh!”.
But here’s another common fallacy, in which people on my sciencey side of the camp need to be clearer. Science isn’t actually based on facts. Undisputable facts don’t exist. Nothing in science is certain, it’s based on testable hypotheses and experiments. Instead of talking about science as facts, we need to convey the truth, that everything in science is in fact an ongoing investigation.
Of course, people then revert to the argument of “well, if it’s on ongoing investigation, surely it’s still a matter for belief?” You choose to believe in the research or not. This is not necessary though, and that still doesn’t make it a matter for belief or not. This is because the real choice is beneath that, and is the decision of HOW you choose to think about things. You can either hedge your bets with the ongoing research, or hedge your bets with the thin air option a religion would suggest.
As a scientist I don’t ‘believe’ in any theory out there, but I may still argue their cases as the probable explanation, based on the research and knowledge accumulated thus far. As such, I resent it when people suggest to me that I have chosen to put my belief in science. I haven’t. I don’t put belief in anything. I strive very hard to remain as open-minded as possible, that applies equally as much when I’m reading scientific reports as when I look at religious opinions.
And this is the key thing we should be teaching society and children in particular - to question everything, and make up their own minds. But we also have to teach them that only things which have been investigated with a critical analysis are worthy of serious consideration, as theories, or ideas, or anything.
Dawkins has it right in his recent programme about faith schools. His way of explaining it to children is to say that there are there are things that are deserving of your belief, and things that aren’t. That there are good reasons and bad reasons to believe in things. Authority, tradition, and revelation (just because it feels good) are bad reasons for putting belief in something. Evidence, is a good reason.
This is a great way to explain it, but I would still like to see the word ‘belief’ applied less in terms of science, because it’s really got nothing to do with it and further perpetuates the false idea that the decision is one of choice, choose to believe in this or that. Critical analysis and mounting evidence (notice I say mounting, because it’s an ongoing investigation, remember, not fact), are really the only ways to sensibly think.
Here's a link to the very well made Dawkins programme about faith schools, although if you're outside the Uk and find it doesn't play in your country, I apologise. I don't know what channel 4's rules are about that.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/faith-school-menace/4od#3112619