Faith is essential to science

SOME SCIENCE ADVOCATES openly contend that science and religion are locked into a battle to the death. Believing that religion will sooner or later be certainly defeated, some assume that science is necessarily doing service to atheism. Science does not necessarily imply atheism However, Harvard Universitys popular science professor Stephen Jay Gould rejects any brash equation of scientific excellence with atheism. Aware of the religious views of leading evolutionary biologists, he vocally observed in his Rocks of Ages: Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefsand equally compatible with atheism *38+. Denying of course the first part of the disjunction, the context of his writing clarifies his point that nature can be interpreted in a theistic or in an atheistic waybut it demands neither of these. In other words, [for him] both are genuine intellectual possibilities for science. Indeed, the fact that a lot of full-pledged and decorated scientists do believe in God essentially proves that the so-called warfare between science and religion is just a delusion. When The God Delusion of the celebrated scientist-atheist Richard Dawkins was published in 2006, in that same year, three other books were published by leading research scientists: 1) that of a noted Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich, Gods Universe, declaring that the universe has been created with intention and purpose, and that this belief does not interfere with the scientific enterprise; 2) that of cosmologist Paul Davies, Goldilocks Enigma, arguing for the existence of fine-tuning in the universe; 3) and the Language of God of evolutionary biologist and head of the famous Human Genome Project Francis Collins which argues that the wonder and ordering of nature points to a Creator or God *40+. This evidently flies in the face of Dawkins assumption that real scientists must be atheists and that they simply cannot mean it when they own up to religious beliefs, interests or commitments. Professor Emeritus of Biology in University of Detroit Paulinus F. Forsthoefel further explains why there is no, and there should not be, war between real science and faith. When each stays in its own territory of competence, the two, he says, do not and should not contradict each other: The area of natural science is natural phenomena and its competence is to explain them by natural forces. The primary paradigm of the natural science is that all natural phenomena can be explained by natural forces. To invoke some preternatural or supernatural force to explain some as yet unexplained natural phenomenon is to step outside this paradigm and is not acceptable to natural scientists But explanations made by natural scientists as scientists cannot and should not go into the ultimate causes and purposes of natural phenomena . *42+ Enumerating questions which for him rest outside the domain of science, Forsthoefel continues: So scientific explanations cannot give answers to questions like these: What is the ultimate source or origin or the universe and what it contains? What is the ultimate source of the regularities and laws that govern the world and make it a cosmos and not a chaos? Why, for what purpose, does the world exist? What is mans ultimate destiny? Such questions may find partial answers from the efforts of philosophers using their powers of natural reason. These efforts are beyond the intellects of many humans. *43+ (emphasis added) Former atheist Oxford University professor Alister McGrath connectedly reported that most unbelieving scientists of his acquaintance are atheists on grounds other than their sciencethey bring those assumptions to their science rather than basing them on their science *44+.

Faith is even essential to science

What renders atheists science-is-against-faith proposal all the more mistaken is the statement of physicist Charles H. Townes, who won the 1964 Nobel Prize for his work on lasers. Faith, he explains, is essential to science too, although we do not generally recognize the basic need and nature of faith in science. Faith is necessary for the scientist even to get started, and deep faith necessary for him to carry out his tougher tasks. Why? Because he must have confidence that there is order in the universe and that the human mindin fact, his own mindhas a good chance of understanding this order. *47+ Writing for London Review of Books, Terry Eagleton shares this view about faith and science. About the author of The God Delusion, he writes, Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no unimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain. Only positivists think that rational means scientific. *48+ Subscribing to old, so-called Logical Positivism which is no longer taken seriously in any quarter, Dawkins approach is said to be already being a period piece by 1985. Therefore, the hot anti-religious ire of Dawkinsianism is based on really old, and now widely rejected, philosophy *49+. And as regards the philosophy that what cannot be explained scientifically has no reality, biologist Forsthoefel contends that the extension of scientific methods to demand the exclusion of other avenues to knowledge is an assumption that cannot be validated on a scientific basis. The methods of science cannot prove or disprove the existence of entities outside of the natural phenomenaaccessible to them. So when scientists proclaim that only material things exist and deny the possibility of non-material entities (e.g., a human soul) existing, they are making unproved assertions. Faith is not in conflict with true science but it is in conflict with the dogmatic materialism of some scientists. *50+ (emphasis added) The last statement of this quotation clarifies once and for all that the real score in the subject matter is not faith versus science, but faith against materialism! Concluding Remarks: Morality is outside the realm of science Indian philosopher Deepak Chopra enumerates subject matters which, indeed, are outside the domain of science. His list includes our knowledge pertaining to love, honor, social relationships, forgiveness, compassion, and altruism which may not be semantically equated, but are nonetheless closely related, to the study of morality: For thousands of years human beings have been obsessed by beauty, truth, love, honor, altruism, courage, social relationships, art, and God. They all go together as subjective experiences, and its a straw man to set God up as the delusion. If he is, then so is truth itself or beauty itself. God stands for the perfection of both, and even if you think truth and beauty (along with love, justice, forgiveness, compassion, and other divine qualities) can never be perfect, to say that they are fantasies makes no sense.The world in general has meaning, deep meaning at times. This cannot be dismissed as a delusion, an artifact of chemicals. Beauty and meaning can be known independent of a biochemical analysis. *51+ (emphasis added) This is admitted by atheist scientist T.J. Nelson who declares, among others, that questions related to morality is not in the territory of science. As if comparing science with religion, he states: Religion asks two important questions that are of vital significance to every thinking person: (1) How can we construct a valid universal ethical system in the absence of a higher authority? and (2) How does one deal with death? When you're

lying on the cold ground breathing your last breath, you will discover that science has few answers that matter to you; without some religious framework, regardless of whether its factual basis is true or false, you will have no way to understand it. Whether or not the cosmological tenets of any particular religion are factually true, religion also provides a framework for people to think about larger questions beyond the everyday trivia that can relentlessly grind a person into an uncaring, vicious animal. *52+ (emphasis added) An atheist Nelson thus believes that science has few answers that matter to us not only on questions concerning death but also on matters pertaining to valid universal ethical system. Dr. William Clark (Ph. D.) concurs with the point that morality is outside the realm of science. In his article, The Worldview of Richard Dawkins: from The Selfish Gene to The God Delusion, he rightly noticed that one thread that runs throughout Dawkins works is his worship of science; his view that ultimately science can successfully address (almost) every problem. To this, he nevertheless comments: One thing science cannot do, however, is determine what is right and wrong, what is moral or immoral. *53+ Verily, the goodness or badness of a human act cannot, for it is rationally impossible, be determined by any laboratory, method, or equipment of science. Therefore, since atheists ethical philosophy, such as that of Dawkins, is based on the science-is-the-only-road-to-knowledge epistemology, it is not any wonder that their ethical philosophy is in no way philosophically sound. Guide Questions: 1. Why is faith essential to science? 2. Do you agree with the author that morality is outside the realm of science? Why or why not? 3. Refute: Science and religion are locked into a battle to the death.

The Theistic Ethics and the cut-flower thesis

THEISTIC ETHICS BELIEVES THAT A SUPERNATURAL BEING called God is the foundation of morality. Its proponents hold that unlike secularists ethical theories, this ethical system can satisfactorily explain the existence of objective moral values and the moral law. Can justify moral values While other ethical views can just postulate good moral principles, only a theistic view can justify them. At least four reasons are given for this: (1) Unless ethics is rooted in the unchangeable nature of a morally perfect being (God), there is no basis for believing in moral absolutes. Only an absolute Moral Law-Giver is a sufficient ground for absolute moral laws; (2) And, if everything is relative, then there is no good reason why anyone ought to refrain from doing anything he or she wants to do, including rape, murder, and genocide. Of course, as humanist Paul Kurtz holds, those who deny moral absolutes can believe in general moral principles, many of which are noble (Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism, a Christian Research Journal *Fall 1988), pp. 27-29]). What they cannot do nevertheless is to justify this belief, since according to their system, there is no real ground for such a belief. (3) Only in theism are all persons held morally accountable for their actions in the real sense. With this theory, we can, with consistency, make moral choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even carry out acts of extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not just empty and meaningless gestures, rather, our moral lives have a paramount significance. Finally, (4) only the ethics rooted in a Moral Law-Giver can be truly prescriptive in any objective sense of the word. A descriptive ethic is no ethics at allit merely tells us what people are doing, not what they ought to do. We see people doing all kinds of evil of which even relativists do not approve. All that is required to demonstrate this is to try insulting, raping, or killing a relativist. His or her reaction will betray his or her true belief that these acts are wrong. History proves the cut-flower thesis Believing generally that morality is based on the Supernatural, religious ethicists maintain that religion is necessary for the continued survival of morality as an integral part of human life. Glenn C. Graber calls this apologetic claim the cut-flowers thesis (1972, pp. 15) which consists of a hypothetical judgment that, Morality cannot survive, in the long run, if its ties to religion are cut. This proposition is a prediction of what would happen to morality if it were severed from religion. Leo Tolstoy in 1894 made the following early statement of this thesis: The attempts to found a morality apart from religion are like the attempts of children who, wishing to transplant a flower that pleases them, pluck it from the roots that seem to them unpleasing and superfluous, and stick it rootless into the ground. Without religion there can be no real, sincere morality, just as without roots there can be no real flower (1964, pp. 31-32). The cut-flower thesis thus implies that those who believe that morality is a valuable human institution, and those who wish to avoid moral disaster, should therefore make every effort to preserve its connection with religion and the religious belief that forms its roots. As morality is currently in a withering stage, its decline can be identified with the exorbitant secularization of many things. Support for this claim can be found both among those sympathetic to religion and surprisingly enough, among those with little or no sympathy for religion.

Basil Willey, a religionist, calls for urgent action to re-unite religion and ethics. He holds that there has been a progressive deChristianization during the last three or four centuries, the outcome of which is what we see around us in the world todaythe moral and spiritual nihilism of the modern world, particularly of the totalitarian creeds (1964, p. 118). W.T. Stace, a secularist, surprisingly supports the cut-flower thesis when he said:

 the chaotic and bewildered state of the modern world is due to mans loss of faith, his abandonment of God and religion. I agree with this statement.... Along with the ruin of the religious vision there went the ruin of moral principles and indeed all values. (1967, pp. 3,9, emp. added) And for those who doubt that religion ever promoted morality in history (since immorality has flourished even in ages of religious domination), not less than the well-known (agnostic) historians Will and Ariel Durant answer, thus: Certainly sensuality, drunkenness, coarseness, greed, dishonesty, robbery and violence existed in the Middle Ages; but probably the moral disorder born of half a millennium of barbarian invasion, war, economic devastation, and political disorganization would have been much worse without the moderating effect of the Christian ethic, priestly exhortations, saintly exemplars, and a calming, unifying ritual. *The+ Church labored to reduce slavery, family feuds, and national strife, to extend the intervals of truce and peace, and to replace trial by combat or ordeal with the judgments of established courts. It softened the penalties exacted by Roman or barbarian law, and vastly expanded the scope and organization of charity. (The Lessons of History, Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 1968, p. 44) All these statements call attention to the prediction of the cut-flowers thesis which, by way of summary, suggests that morality cannot survive without religion. Some words of caution are needed here though. The cut-flowers thesis does not say that a consequence of abandoning religion leads immediately to murder, rape, robbery, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and the like. Nor does it say that the institution of morality cannot survive in the long runif its ties to religion are cut. It just demonstrates that for there to be any real ground or reason for moral action, one must admit a religious heritage. Accountability Ethical supernaturalism, compared to non-theist counterparts, is comparatively better as an ethical system in terms of accountability. Theistic ethics maintains that mans life does not end at the grave and that all persons are held morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be banished, righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall see that we do live in a moral universe after all. In the end, supernaturalism expects, the scales of Gods justice will be balanced. In effect therefore, the moral choices that people make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. In supernaturalistic paradigm, we can, with consistency, make ethical decisions which actually run contrary to our self-interest and even undertake acts of extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such choices are not just empty and meaningless gestures. In supernaturalistic worldview, our moral lives do have a paramount significance. It is noteworthy that even non-theist Professor Taylor, in his writings, agrees that supernaturalism provides a perfectly coherent and sound basis for morality. In the book he authored, Ethics, Faith, and Reason, he writes, thus:

The idea of moral obligation is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can be understood as those imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations (Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason,Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1985, pp. 8384). Unfortunately, Professor Taylor seems not to believe in God, and so he shuns a supernatural foundation for morality. Nevertheless, he admits that if God exists, then the foundations for morality are secure. Thus, even non-theists can agree to the reasons proving that supernaturalism provides a sound and better foundation for morality.

Accountability in Naturalism When we turn to naturalism, we will notice that there is no real moral accountability for ones actionsfor human life just finds its end in grave. Absent in secularism is the so-called life-after of theism where the final reward and punishment, which make the ultimate justice possible, will be given. Even if we grant that there were objective moral values under naturalism or secularism, they would emerge to be irrelevant because there is no moral accountability. It would be like promulgating a strict state law but without real sanction or punishment for the offenders. In such a condition, there would be no essential difference between following and transgressing that strict law. Similarly, if life ends at the grave as secularism suggests, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Hitler or as a saint. As the Russian writer Dostoyevsky rightly said, If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, translated by. C. Garnett, New York: Signet Classics, 1957, bk. II, chap. 6; bk. V, chap. 5; bk. XI, chap. 8). As William Lane Craig explains, given the finality of death, it really does not matter how one lives. We wonder what a secularist would say to someone who contends that we may as well just live for self-interest, live just as we please, and for pleasure. Secularists may preach that it is in our best self-interest to adopt a moral lifestyle. But as we observe, that is not always true. We know of situations in which morality runs smack in the face of self-interest. If one is sufficiently powerful, like a Hitler or a dictator, one can just ignore the dictates of conscience and live in pure self-indulgence. Acts of self-sacrifice become particularly inept in a secular-naturalistic worldview that sacrifice for another person would just be stupid. Rebuttal Some secularists propose that the idea of life ending at the grave still makes a difference whether you live as a saint or as a devil. It makes a difference, they claim, to what kind of a person you are. They suggest that you can say, I want to look good as a human being, and that is not a bad ideal, so they say. Well, indeed, it is not a bad ideal for a teacher, parent, husband, wife, or anybody to look good to themselves as human beings. However, it does not make any real difference what kind of person you are on the secularist worldviewfor like animals in forests, our end is all the same, and you ultimately do not contribute to the good of the universe or the ultimate betterment of moral value. There simply is no moral value in secular worldview as in the case of lesser beings. All is ultimately extinguished in death and in the heat death of the universe. It simply makes no difference what kind of person you become. And so, as we noted, what would secularists say to someone who concludes he should just live for self-interest? Why should acts of self-sacrifice and compassion be undertaken on a secularist worldview? Why adopt the moral point of view? We cannot see any basis for this in secularism, where there is no moral accountability. Clearly, the absence of moral accountability in the philosophy of secularism makes the virtues of compassion and self-sacrifice hollow abstractions. Secularism, therefore, fails to match supernaturalism in supplying this necessary element for a sound moral foundation.

Guide Questions: (Write your answer/s in the comment section below [add a comment]. Don't forget to click also the 'LIKE' button before writing anything.) 1. What is the cut-flower thesis? What are the indications that it is highly probable? 2. Compare and contrast Theism and Naturalism in terms of moral accountability. 3. Theistic Ethics can satisfactorily explain objective moral values. Explain.