Do you believe in evolution?
That was the question posed to Mike Huckabee, who is running for President. His answer, basically, is no, I don't believe in evolution, I believe in what is written in the Bible. Like almost everyone who discusses this issue, he was tripped up by the question, and his answer was irrelevant. I'm not saying his answer is wrong. I'm saying his answer isn't relevant to the question, and it's a trick question to begin with.
Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in electricity? If you answer "yes" to either question, I've tripped you up and your answer is also irrelevant. Gravity and electricity exist and occur, whether or not we believe in them. In the same way, evolution occurs whether or not we believe in it.
I think the whole science versus religion debate has gotten completely out of whack and I'm surprised commentators on both sides haven't addressed the fundamental mismatch that is fueling the entire debate. There's science, and there's faith. The two are completely different from one another and completely unrelated. They're orthogonal. They can't contradict each other, and they can coexist without diminishing the other.
Religions focus on belief, disbelief, and faith. The benefits of religion and spiritual paths only accrue to those who have a solid foundation of faith in their path. All religions admonish their followers to be firm in their faith, or face negative consequences (ranging from the neutral to the very negative). Some religions assert that reliance on reason is not a substitute for faith. In other words, belief and faith are what matter, not evidence and reason.
Science, on the other hand, focuses on reason, observation, evidence, and revision. Science gives us tools with which we can predict how the world around us functions, and test those predictions in a disciplined manner, which leads to more and more knowledge about how things work. Belief and disbelief simply don't enter the picture. The universe doesn't function differently depending on whether or not a person believes or doesn't believe something.
So faith and science are orthogonal. You can have a strong faith in God and still use science to understand the world. The tools of science can't impact your faith, and your faith can't impact the laws of nature.
The waters get a little muddied where science begins to look at what happens in the human brain when it believes in something. Faith clearly has an impact on how an individual responds to the world. For example, it is well documented (i.e. there is a lot of scientific evidence) that placebos can have positive effects on health if the patient believes the placebo is real medicine. There is some evidence that prayer can have similar beneficial effects on health, and most intriguingly, there is some evidence that having other people pray for your good health can make you healthier.
None of this implies divine intervention, and this is where some scientists get tripped up. Faith "works" in these cases because it's a powerful force within our minds, not because God is answering a prayer. The placebo effect and other mechanisms provide clear explanations for this. But for many people, it only works if they strongly believe it is God answering their prayers. Science should help us understand the power of faith, not try to undermine its impact by denying the particular details of the faith.
Having said that, I would argue that true faith cannot be undermined by contrary evidence. I think faith and reason operate in different parts of the brain. The reasoning part of our brain causes trouble for us when we try to reason about our faith. Conversely, the faith part of our brain causes us to question the value of reason when we see contradictions caused by reason.
But if we carefully examine how science and faith operate, we can see that neither is diminished by the advancement of the other. Whether or not someone believes the world was created 6,000 years ago doesn't change the fossil record. And the existence of evidence of a planet that is millions of years old doesn't change someone's faith. We've seen plenty of evidence of that. Science and religion operate in different domains.
Why is this debate important? Mostly because this either/or mentality has created a very negative dynamic. Since people have been led to believe that science and faith cannot coexist peacefully, they believe it's a zero-sum game: in order for their faith to be effective, they have to undermine science, and vice versa. The most dangerous result of this, in my view, is the anti-science agenda of some in the religious community. They believe they are under attack by scientists trying to undermine their faith, and so they fight back by trying to undermine science. This is dangerous because it makes us less equipped to understand the world around us. (And from a purely economic point of view, scientific understanding leads to technological advancement, which leads to better global competitiveness.)
This is a lose-lose battle no matter which way you look at it. First, science cannot be undermined by belief. Gravity works wether or not you believe in it. On the other hand, if we deny the beneficial impact of faith, we miss out on a very beneficial part of what makes us human.
I say we should call a truce, at least until people can think with clear heads about this: acknowledge that faith and science are both beneficial in their own domains, and that they coexist. By definition, they are orthogonal and can't contradict each other. Neither is diminished by the advancement of the other, and neither is advanced by the diminishment of the other. They are separate conversations. They don't belong in the same classroom or the same debate.
Let's let the scientists talk about science, and let faith leaders talk about faith and belief. Hopefully each will learn from the other.
Comments
Hi Pierre, your comments miss a subtle, but very important, aspect of the so called "debate" over evolution between religious fundamentalists like Mike Huckabee and scientists, like Richard Dawkins. What you miss is the crucial distinction that must be made between religion and faith, which are very different from one another. Faith is a personal belief in something (a thing or an event, past, present or future) that is not based on objective observation but is instead based on feelings. Faith is a positive thing, it can give people hope that their lives have meaning, that good things will happen to them or that they will continue to live in spirit even after they die.
Religion, however, is very different. Religion requires its followers to believe in astonishing supernatural events and alleged divine revelations experienced by other people, typically the founders of the religion. Religious followers are told of these revelations and events second hand by self proclaimed “holy” men who teach from ancient texts whose contents can not be authenticated and typically contain absurd, contradictory tales. Religious men establish their supremacy over their followers through claims of divinity supported by these texts and then use their self created position of moral authority to impose rules on their subjects that dictate how to think and how to act. Religions convince people to join them by promising eternal life when their rules are followed and eternal damnation when they are not. In short religions use trickery and fear to control the lives of their followers, often times to the benefit of the men who operate the religion and to the detriment of their own adherents. For this reason religion, unlike faith, has shown itself throughout history to be a poisonous and destructive force in people’s lives.
Therefore to say that religion and evolution do not conflict with one another is incorrect and harmful. To believe in the account of creation as portrayed by Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any other mystical religion you can not accept evolution. The rules of these religions do not allow it. Furthermore to suggest otherwise is to encourage the continued belief in the ridiculous and absurd. Certainly faith can coexist with evolution but religion can not.
so i guess i'm disagreeing with you on some points and agreeing on others. ;-) and... i do believe in the big bang, as well as evolution. how could i not?
Basically, you just have people teaching something, like Dawkins does, and others creating structures (and often attachment) around those views. Sometimes the non-religious folks can act the most "religious" -- if religious means to be adamant about one's beliefs. Weird how that happens.
Also, Mike, many Christian religions accept that evolution occurs. Many liberal protestants accept evolution as fact, and Catholics don't dismiss it out of hand. I believe they teach about evolution in Catholic schools. (I know the priest at the church I attended growing up accepted evolution as fact.)
I hate to break this to you but evolution is a religion not science. If you are an evolutionist you have to believe that all matter existed in a dot smaller than a period. Then a big bang. Then we were created over billions of years from a cosmic soup(starting with rocks.) I am a scientist by schooling and have worked in healthcare my adult life. I do believe in micro-evolution within a species but have never read a study or scientific journal in which one animal macro-evolved into a new animal. They have attempted to create something new with the simple fruit fly genetically and have failed. If you can find scientific data to back evolution you are further along than the theorists. Since evolution is faith based theory it is religion not science. I believe that makes your argument against yourself as religion is man made just like evolutionary theory. Where do you believe we come from? Who created what we are and the laws of science? PS how does gravity prove evolution just curious?
You say: "I think faith and reason operate in different parts of the brain."
The priest says: "I believe faith and reason operate in different parts of the brain."
Anyway, fun thoughts. Read any Kierkegaard lately?
I would like to read more analyses like this of your view of the balances and non-balances in the today world and the human mind.
Thanks for sharing, Pierre.
great explanation. to me it is not a battle or a conflict science and religion,though relgion can make a wall. thanks for clearly stating the issues.
however do believe there is pure belief and that may or may not have to do with religion. And wonder why religion is not broad enough to include it;without attaching some bible story or dogma. for example having a conversation other day a girl mentioned she was expensive and would not like have anyone make a taped audience video [turn cameras on audience]without being paid to participate. i said well you could have everyone send a cheer in middle of it,making the request for pay known. then went on to say don't believe theatre is so mean as wouldn't consider it. o.k. a statement like this is a belief,some kind about a subject: theatre also a kind of faith about that subject: those legitimate to theatre. [that is you might have faith that those in this profession might understand position of needing to be paid,that us [are expensive],need to pay bills [etc] do not except any kind of exploitation where abuses might untowardly be created. do beliefs like these pose a difference to religion. belief is belief,faith is faith can apply to a number of articles. read just last night how the greeks had conflicts because of their belief in many gods until aritostle tried to prove that this couldn't be by divine unity of religions principles which would make in reality only one god. why is everyone conflicted,i don't know. are they born impossible. o.k. no problem,believe in one god myself. however there are some pretty believable hebrew stories about the various angels who were either goddesses at one time,turned demons or fallen angels or even a combination. those stories are too believable to not be real in terms of the problems that occur and reoccur and are archtypes of real characters have seen in present times and the best da..-- explanation for what is going on. Reconsider the belief of demons in The
Golden Compass and today Hans Christian Anderson is more than a fairytale writer he is a confirmed christian thinker that thinks outside of the box sheer christian insistence on ignorance. So can one also say believe in one god yet believe in varied angels,fallen angels [sometimes been goddesses that hebrews believe in,so impressed so elaborate even capable of competing with the pagans as a mainstay religion certifies both as legiitmate. read extensively about these incredible women amazed at openess awareness of hebrews when espousing one god,undoubtedly a man. Only till read these things from authentic hebrew writings realized the legitimacy of the jews;because in time they could have become as dogmatic and set as christians harping over again the same bible stories to tedium. However is rather esoteric knowledge must say both could achieve that. think alice bailey- confirmed christian.