At 11:42 AM 8/12/99 -0700, Teresa Michelsen wrote:
>OK, I'll state up front that I consider myself a scientist, and I do not
>have a belief about God one way or the other. I would like to address the
>topic of whether or not science is a belief system. I think we can all
>agree that religions are belief systems. Many people object to putting
>science and religion on an equal footing, because they believe science is an
>objective way of studying the world, and religion, fundamentally speaking,
>rests on faith. Therefore, according to this way of thinking, science is
>not a belief, but a system of facts (and many people take it further to
>state that facts belong in schools and beliefs or religions don't).

>Although I practice science, I consider this a conscious choice, similar to
>selecting a religion. I DO think that science is a system of beliefs; and
>the validity of those beliefs is not any more provable than religion.

This is one way to look at science, and your post is a very thoughtful
examination of that point of view.

A more mundane way of looking at science is to simply take it at
face value: science is about explaining how the natural world works.

Nothing more.

Science says nothing about the supernatural (i.e. things not in
nature, not observable or measurable but outside the scheme, God
being one example of a supernatural construct).

Which is one reason I think so many scientists find it easy to
reconcile their personal religous beliefs with their work as
science.

You're looking deeper, I think, into questions like "what does
science tell us about the MEANING of reality?"

I think the simplest answer is "nothing". The fact that we
observe evolution, that the natural selection appears to best
fit the evidence, says nothing about "why is the world here?"
or "is there meaning beyond our daily existence?"

Deep religous thinkers seem to skate right over science and
worry about things that are perhaps more important in the long
run, i.e. the meaningfulness of human existence, morality,
etc. This is as true of Christian theologians.

It seems to be insecure and petty religous thinkers who
view science as a threat to religon.

Anyway, I think I have to disagree with your statement that
science is a system of beliefs as unprovable as religon, for
the simple reason that the claims of science are so modest.

You don't have to be a scientist to discount the existence of
anything outside nature (i.e. to believe that there is nothing
supernatural "out there"). Nor do you have to drop any belief
of the existence of the supernatural (God, perhaps) in order
to practice science.

Science per se claims to be good at helping learn, say, how to
build cars and airplanes and how natural selection impacts the
diveristy of life on earth, nothing more.

(I realize some philosophers claim more for scientists, and
many scientists do as well, but this lies outside science,
does it not?)

....

>Why do I think it's not provable? There is a long-standing tenet of both
>philosophy and science that self-referential systems cannot be proven.

In fact, your statement's been proven true for mathematical systems. The
natural world is self-referential, by definition, so the philisophical issues
that are raised are obvious.

Of course, science isn't about "proof" in the mathematical sense, anyway,
an attribute which dishonest creationists leap on at every opportunity.
"Science 'admits' theories can't be proved, therefore evolution is just a
religion"

A theory fits known data, but we can't prove that the theory is complete,
and any theory is subject to change when new data is discovered. Today,
our warehouse of data for many subjects is quite complete, and we can
be quite comfortable talking about things like gravity, fission, and
the evolution of life on earth.

Of course, we can't prove that God won't end the universe tomorrow, but
that would be a supernatural event and lies outside of science.

....

>In order to be absolutely right, therefore, about whether the religious or
>scientific belief structure is correct,

I have a real problem with this. Many modern theologians approach the
problem by viewing the two as being complementary. In other words, neither
is complete, so neither can be correct in any absolute sense.

This doesn't mean that science isn't a better tool for understanding
the natural world that lies within its limited domain of study.

It also doesn't mean that the modes of thought brought to the table
by religion and philosophy aren't better for dealing with issues such
as, say, ethics. Or the meaning of life.

....

>My point here is that none of these propositions can be proven.

So-called scientific creationists don't believe in any of the propositions
that you propose, and indeed seem to be on record as considering each of
them equally blasphemous.

Did you intentionally leave out the so-called scientific creationist
proposition, i.e. that the data is consistent with a universe created
just a bit over 6,000 years ago and that science, having been enlisted
by Satan in his battle against God on earth, has been lying about
the data in order to subvert Christianity?

> The sooner
>we realize that we all choose our belief system, the sooner we can stop
>trivializing others' beliefs or thinking our own to be superior.

I hold honesty to be superior to dishonesty, however, and don't
really care if that's because I've chosen my belief system or not.
Scientific creationism is inherently dishonest, and I was raised
with a firm belief in the Ten Commandments. While I don't
consider myself to be a particularly religous person, I have held
on to certain of the moral beliefs that were taught to me as a
child.

Science didn't teach me morals, early religious training did. Science
has taught me much about the way our world works, though, and those
who lie about it get caught smack between my moralistic religious
training which taught me to abhor dishonesty and my knowledge of
science.

I'm not alone in having respect for religion, including Christianity,
while reviling the dishonest liars of the Institute for Creation
Research.

Thoughtful folks will also realize that scientists who work to
maintain the integrity of scientific education in this country are
very specific in attacking so-called scientific creationism, NOT
Christianity (or other religous systems).

It is the insistence by scientific creationists that religon be
taught in science classrooms AS SCIENCE, along with their lying
about that motive in public (though the motive has been stated
often enough to fellow Christians) that triggers such deep
antipathy among scientists.

As I'm sure you're aware, many of the most vehement opponents
of so-called scientific creationists are deeply religous
Christians themselves, deeply offended by the notion that we
should try to bolster faith in students (and others) by lying
about the natural world in the name of God.

....

>When I feel tempted to denigrate Creationists or any other belief
>system that I personally find unlikely, it is instructive to remind myself
>that none of these systems can be proven, and that the vast majority of the
>world believes in either 2, 3, or 4 above.

I think this is a wise way to think.

However, if you think that this is the basis of the argument against
the teaching of so-called scientific creationism in the science classroom,
or the basis of the argument against religious censorship of science
education, you're mistaken.

A very simple idea: the insistence that religion be taught as religion
is every bit as respectful of religion as it is of science. Teaching
the two modes of thought as being separate, complementary ways of trying
to make sense of the universe is in no way disrespectful of religion.

Likewise, the notion that we lie about data in order to teach religion
as though it is science trivializes religion. Think about it - this
insistence essentially says "science is valid, religion is not, when
science contradicts the Bible we must censor science because Christianity
is too weak to survive truth"

This speaks of a horrible insecurity in one's faith, if one is faithful.

....

>In the meantime, I appreciate your participation in Tweeters whether you are
>marvelling over the intricacies of evolution or delighting in the beauty
>that God has created. Why does it matter?

It matters because truthfulness does matter, in my humble opinion. While
there can be no absolute truth, it is equally true that their can be lies.

And the entire premise of so-called scientific creationism is based on a
lie.

> Why do so many people feel
>compelled to force their systems on everyone? Or prohibit others from being
>discussed or practiced? Sigh...

Do you believe that any and all lies should be taught as science?

Should we teach that the earth is flat, and call it science?

It really isn't about tolerance, Theresa, and it saddens me to some degree
to see you cast the argument in such terms. How can this be about intolerance
of Christianity when so many of its practioners are devout? If the reaction
against the teaching of religion AS SCIENCE is an example of "forcing ones
systems on everyone" or "prohibiting others from being discussed or
practiced", then why do devout scientists vehemently opposed to the teaching
of religion AS SCIENCE speak equally in favor of teaching religion AS
RELIGION? The argument is every bit as much about the integrity of
religion as of science.

If we start teaching religion and call it science, can I start teaching
plumbing at call it mathematics? Or worse, for most of us (given how
important plumbing is to our day-to-day enjoyment of life), can I teach
math and call it plumbing?

If we start down this path, just where do you suggest we stop?



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.