Faith, science, academic cred, and other things keeping us from learning from one another

Occasionally, I touch on the dialogue, discussion, and debate surrounding science and faith, but that probably underscores how much time I spend thinking about it. It really is at the crux of what I enjoy reading and pondering on long, cold Minnesota days. This has come across in a couple of my posts in the last year--most notably on the subject of monarchs and the questions of how versus why and in a piece on the my confirmation students' polarization on the question of scripture and evolution--but I have written far more on other subjects during that time, and I suppose it's mostly because I have a hard time putting words to the problem. The language available to discuss the relationship between faith and science is narrow and generally unhelpful, so I continue to ponder how it is that we go on from here.

from http://www.universetoday.com/74724/where-are-stars-born/

However, there comes a point when one must say something in an attempt to approach some kind of more expansive truth. So this is my newest attempt, borne out of a confirmation discussion I will be having with our ninth-graders today. This is neither comprehensive nor final; it is only a drop in the ocean of a question that is many-layered and breeds more contempt between parties than is necessary or prudent. I still believe that people of faith and people of science need each other in this messed-up world--even if their respective philosophies do not. Here's why:

The problem

When talking about science we really need to start at the beginning, which is where we find the null hypothesis. A null hypothesis is what science brings to the table before an experiment, which is to say it brings nothing--no baggage, no assumptions from the past. In this way, science suggests that nothing is true except that which can be proven under repeated experimentation. It is what makes science naturally skeptical. Theories are generated when models are tested repeatedly and specifically over time--again and again. Most amateur scientists never get beyond this point of re-testing theories. However, you don't make yourself a success by eternally defending the status quo. You make a career by overturning prevailing theories through new experiments. Scientists are always working to overturn what was previously thought to be known.

Where this begins to get tricky, however, is when these smaller experiments begin to be extrapolated into real-life, large-scale theories of the world outside of the experiment. Most of the time things work as the procedures of scientific experimentation suggest they should, but occasionally things get weird. One illustration of this is in the area of quantum mechanics. As it turns out, on a really small scale things don't seem to work as they do on a large scale. Since the advent of quantum theory scientists have sought to unify its principles with the principles of our normal, real-sized world with little success. Perhaps one day we will know why things behave differently on the quantum level, but for now it does call into question what is known if a simple change in size and perspective makes everything go wonky.

The real rub when it comes to unified theories is that they start to infringe on something very near and dear to many people: their faith. Where is the room for God in a world understood solely by action and reaction? Moreover, there is an implication that absence of evidence is equivalent to evidence of absence. People of faith see the writing on the wall: science and God are mutually exclusive, and for people of faith their side is clear.

This is the starting point for a big, unnecessary mess.

It is true that faith comes from a perspective entirely foreign to science. Faith starts with the presumption that God is real on the grounds that God works through the words of our parents, our teachers, our pastors, our scripture, our prophets, our natural world, and even occasionally from God's self to give faith to us. It comes to us through stories and life experience and thinking and praying, none of which stand up to scientific examination. After all, many of these are one-time events. How can you test if God appeared to a person through any legitimate experimentation if it's not something that can be repeated? You can't. So science claims there is no validity to the claim, but that is certainly different from saying it never happened. What if there are instances of events that have happened just that one time, and what if there is a God who works through natural processes? If these things do happen then science is handicapped, because its very methodology precludes that possibility.

Where do we go from here?
A teacher of mine, David O'Hara, began his recent blog post on "Evolution and Education" by posing the question: "Is God capable of creating through natural processes?" Then, he reasoned:

"There are only two answers to this question.  If you say no, you make God too small to be worth worshiping.  If you say yes, then you see that there's no prima facie reason why belief in God and belief in evolution need to be opposed to one another."

This doesn't prove God's existence or the truth of evolution, nor is it a particularly good reason to have faith, but it is a starting point for a schizophrenic society that's bent on seeing science and faith as some kind of battle between good and evil. The reality is that science tells us a good deal about the world and the way that it works. If you are a person of faith and you believe in God, then you should acknowledge that God could create whatever universe God desired, and, for reasons unclear to us, God fashioned this universe that we now inhabit, a universe with rocks and snow and also gravity and natural selection and evolution. Science has given us a wealth of understanding about how the world works in this regard. Scientists may also keep us from destroying ourselves by pointing out the implications of our corporate sin, especially where we have robbed future generations of the gifts that God has given us to steward. That is part of what people of science offer to people of faith.

But this is a two-way street. The process of doing science has no use for faith; in fact, it is a contradiction in terms; however, let's not confuse the study of a thing with the people who study it. People of science are not just automatons of the scientific method, and there comes a point where a scientific worldview alone leaves a person in a hollow place. We are creatures who hold inexorably to a purpose for our lives. If you hold stringently to the scientific method then all you can ever appeal to for purpose is academic credibility. You may do "good" things, but your purpose is ultimately limited to the very same principles that govern your study.

I have been told on several occasions that my faith is not academically credible, and I guess that's true, but it also makes my life deeper and richer. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's true--I acknowledge that--and it's also probably not very convincing to anybody in the scientific academy. However, I think that a person gets trapped in these structures. I know accountants that can think about nothing but how to make (or keep) a buck, just as I know pastors who cannot bring the faith of their heads and hearts into real actions or authentic relationships in the world. All of these people are to be pitied, because life is more complicated than the boxes we draw around things. I continue to learn from my friends who pursue studies in science, just as I learn from accountants and cooks and janitors--none of them have this whole life figured out but they all bring ideas, some tested, others just off the tops of their heads. All are valuable, even if they don't all bring the same academic credentials.

If I have any finely distilled piece of wisdom it is simply this: The most natural thing is to dismiss out of hand that which does not fit our conventions, but this is also the most dangerous option for people of every persuasion. In a world often teetering on the edge of chaos we would be wise to seek out those who are allies of any perspective, but also we should seek to be challenged by, rather than dismiss, the things that are most difficult to hear. If we do so faithfully we may well leave our egos at the door and discover something beautiful and new.