Sunday, March 1, 2009 at 3:59PM | in Religion The scientific uses of faith
Richard Grant, a post-doc scientist, offers some valuable reflections (at the Nature website, no less) on how faith makes good scientists:The beauty of faith is that it's not an intellectual exercise. Anyone can join in, at whatever level they like. It doesn't require you to be clever-or rich, or middle-class, or college-educated. But it doesn't have to stop there-faith can expand according to your ability. Indeed, as someone's faith grows they will find that it permeates more and more of their life and outlook. In fact, they will probably find themselves becoming a sceptic.
A sceptic, despite what the internets tell you, isn't necessarily an unbeliever. A sceptic is one who questions, one who doesn't take anything on faith .... Someone who, in fact, might make a reasonable scientist. Now, you might say that my definition negates the possibility of a sceptic having faith: but that would be because you misunderstand the nature of ‘faith'.
Grant makes a helpful distinction between religious and scientific knowledge, and faith and science as human practice. The former two have been known to conflict (though certainly not always), and it's useful to clarify the explanatory limits of knowledge from either science or religion. When it comes to faith and science, however, they can be clearly complementarily in the mental habits and discipline that they inculcate. Similar to Grant, I feel that my faith makes me far more skeptical about ideas, the media, policies, programmes, and what is generally presented to me as 'truth'. In fact, the notion that "science can fix this" is alluring to many and simply unscientific in the worldview that it creates.
Hat-tip: Andrew Sullivan
Sunday, March 1, 2009 at 3:59PM | in Religion 
Reader Comments (5)
I love being able to change my mind as more information becomes available.
Women became a comic icon for that quality. It's nice to see faith and reason as partners in the same sentence.
See this paper "Science, Religion and Development" for a further examination of this rich theme:
http://www.bcca.org/ief/isgpsrd.htm
Hi Geoffrey
Thanks for picking up on this. What I'm finding difficult is some of the misunderstandings in the comments. I'm trying to pen a dialogue so that we can move forward from the science vs faith trench warfare, but it's actually difficult when people won't consider that their own ideas are also open to question—and when I'm saying something they don't expect!
Anyway, part 2 in a week, maybe.
Thanks for your visit, Richard.
You're being admirably attentive to your commenters and I think you've hit on a crucial point of the debate that is often ignored. If one considers science to be a mode and discipline of investigation (and not just a social sanction on 'legitimate' knowledge) then religion/faith should be pursued in a scientific manner. Who has the presumption and authority to close the debate on faith?
Looking forward to part 2!
[...] part 1 featured on Jeune Street a few weeks ago. Share and [...]