After a hiatus, I will be regularly writing this column covering issues in science, evolution, religion in the context of both historical and current issues. In the course of these reflections I will discuss some enduring, as well as ‘modern' aspects of the interaction between the ‘scientific temperament' and spiritual and religious commitments. My working credo will be that faith is enriched by science and that science cannot exist without faith. Some might prefer the word "belief" and although there have been attempts to separate the two terms, most of us use them interchangeably. The terms ‘people of faith,' ‘faith communities,' and ‘houses of faith' are certainly more common than ‘belief communities,' etc., but we do often use them in similar ways.
Sometimes it is held that belief is based on evidence, but faith is based on supernatural causes that cannot be tested. In practice, however, many adherents of religious beliefs claim to have empirical evidence, and many who have beliefs about medicine, diet, politics, and assertions of all kinds (I believe this is the best way home) are also often questionable but held with the tenacity of the most diehard religionist. In short, the view taken here is that, just as in a good marriage between two assertive persons, the interactions of faith and science contain both conflicts and complementarities. Understanding the perspective of the other is essential for resolving real as well as apparent differences. This is as true within religious and scientific communities as well as between them.
Now one of the first issues to get out of the way is how to characterize the two key words - science and faith. Science is a process for gaining understanding and knowledge about the universe, especially our planet and its inhabitants, by observation and testing. In the last 200 years it has become clear that scientists can only support natural explanations, not supernatural ones. Furthermore, their work only becomes part of the scientific enterprise when it is published or otherwise made known so that others can repeat or verify the claims made. We really do not want to take a potent medicine that has not passed rigorous testing. As we read in news reports, however, even then it may not be safe as further experience with the medication is collected. Science is thus ongoing; science is not the body of factual knowledge. Students memorizing facts about the world are not learning science. They need to learn the critical tools necessary for asking and answering questions about the natural world and evaluating scientific claims in an open-minded manner
What then is faith? Today the use of the term, as noted above, is often used exclusively for religious persons or activities. On the contrary, I will use faith to refer to the spiritual and moral dimension to life that guides our actions and informs our beliefs. Just as with science, our individual faith is an ongoing process of discovery. No religion today, including Christianity is the same as it was even a century ago. Thus, theologians play a role in religious thinking comparable to that of scientists in secular society. Nonetheless, institutional faith systems and many of their adherents often resist change more than does science as a whole, since their mode of ‘testing' is rather less precise and universally accepted. This creates further tensions that we will explore.
Individual scientists are human, a diverse lot, and also often resist new ideas, especially the more revolutionary or radical ones. In this sense, scientists have different orientations that vary as widely as the approaches to religion found even within the same tradition. They, too, are responding to belief systems grounded in faith and their own individual reputations and economic status. We see this played out constantly. Scientists may feel threatened by new developments, theories, and methods, and point out that any revolutionary claim needs extraordinary support. Fair enough. In the end though, an evolutionary approach to both are needed.
