Faith as a Scientist, Faith as a Catholic

aurora-731456_960_720

“Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: ‘Ye must have faith.’ It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.” Max Planck, Where is Science Going? p.24

  “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”   Hebrews 11:1

Science and religion are two windows through which we can look out at the world around us.” Freeman Dyson, Infinity in All Directions

INTRODUCTION:  SCIENCE AND FAITH
In several posts on Catholic Stand and in Chapter 2  of my web-book, “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” I’ve tried to explain how science works, its limits and its power.   (See here, here, here and here)   As the quote above from Max Planck puts it, those who have worked in science know that faith is an essential element, a cornerstone of the scientific method.

What do we mean by faith?   Guy  McClung has written a fine article on faith, but here for my purpose is a brief answer: belief sustained by revelation, non-scientific or non-logical evidence.   After reading “Who  Moved the Stone,” I became convinced that the evidence for the Resurrection should convince an impartial jury.  From that conviction followed my faith in Catholic dogma and doctrine.   These tenets of dogma and doctrine were not susceptible to empirical verification (or falsification), nor did they follow as conclusions from logical argument.  St. Augustine put it best:

Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.

As I’ll try to show below, the basic propositions on which the scientific method is based are items of faith.  In some cases these might be susceptible to empirical falsification, but they are assumed to hold.  They are like Euclid’s axioms for plane geometry, they seem to be self-evident from our experience.   But like Euclid’s axioms, they may not be valid for a world that differs from that of our everyday experience (e.g. a world of curved space).
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND FAITH
Ask a scientist “what  is the scientific method?”, and you’re likely to get a blank stare or, “Am I on Candid Camera?” as a response.  If you ask a philosopher, you’re may get any one of a number of answers, depending on whether the philosopher belongs to the “realist” or “anti-realist” camp.  There are philosophers who argue that there are no “laws of nature.”   Rather, they maintain that scientific theories are models proposed only “to save the phenomena”.  (See my post, Tipping the Sacred Cow of Science–Confessions of a Science Agnostic.)

 

I’m not going to expound on all the various philosophical schemes for how science works, but focus on one that best represents the progression from articles of faith to empirically verified theories.    I’ll use a tree as a representation of this progression, and do so with  a word diagram rather than a picture, since I’m not an artist:

  • SOIL:     The universe is orderly and intelligible.
  • ROOTS (specific assumptions about scientific principles):   Symmetry /  Conservation Principles; Uniformity (Cosmological) Principles;  The Second Law of Thermodynamics;  Microscopic Reversibility; replicability and predictability of observations.
  • TRUNK (The sap carried is methodology: measurement, observation, mathematics).
  • MAIN BRANCHES (divided into basic theories):  Quantum Mechanics; General and Special Relativity; “Classical” Electromagnetism; Classical Mechanics; Thermodynamics; Super-String Theory; etc.
  • SUBSIDIARY BRANCHES (e.g. for Quantum Mechanics): Quantum Electrodynamics; Laser Optics; Magnetic Resonance; The Standard Model; Molecular Structure; Solid State Theory; Super-conductivity;  etc…

The first two steps, “soil” and “roots” are faith based. A few of the fundamental principles that could be listed in the “roots” category have been shown not to hold (e.g. the parity assumption, the symmetry between right and left-handed processes).    As you’ll note, sciences other than physics are neglected in this scheme–I could add chemistry, but I don’t know enough about biology, geology, etc. to include them, so add on dear reader, if you’re knowledgeable.

 

A few explanatory remarks are in order.   First, it is not a novel idea that faith in an orderly and intelligible universe is the soil in which the tree of science grows. A justification for this notion is that the enterprise of science grew in a Medieval Civilization, and only in this milieu; and that this civilization held the Judaeo-Christian premise that God ordered the universe to be meaningful–“The Heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19a).   Pierre Duhem, Fr. Stanley Jaki and Dr. Stacy Trasancos have written about how science was born of Christianity, and not in other civilizations. 

Although the works of science confirm the notion that the universe is orderly and intelligible, they do not prove it to be so;  that a scientist does believe it to be so is a matter of faith, and if he/she did not have that faith, why should he/she continue the exhausting effort of probing the mysteries of the universe?  Can anyone point out a great or even good scientist who did not believe this?   The Nobel Prize winning mathematical physicist Eugene Wigner has commented on the miracle and mystery of this order, that mathematics can explain how the world works:

It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.—Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences”

Also, the roots of the tree of science, its basic principles, are again matters of  faith.    They seem to be reasonable and confirmed empirically, but there is not logical justification for them–they are premises, not conclusions.    Here are just two examples:

  1. THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE: The distribution of matter (on a large scale) and the laws of physics and the values of physical constants are the same everywhere in the universe; moreover, this uniformity of laws has obtained since creation.  Not all philosophers of science agree with this principle.  Nancy Cartwright posits a “dappled world” in which laws vary from region to region.
  2. SYMMETRY PRINCIPLES: There is an equivalence between symmetry restrictions and physical laws, shown by Emmy Noether in the early 20th century:  for example, spherical symmetry yields conservation of angular momentum; symmetry under time reversal (t –> -t ) yields conservation of energy.    It’s interesting that a symmetry thought before 1954 to hold universally, parity (mirror-image symmetry), was shown not to stand by itself, but to be incorporated into CPT symmetry (charge conjugation, parity and time reversal).

 

There are also esthetic judgments made about theories, judgments that are not considered here.   Such judgments are also articles of faith–that a theory that is “elegant” is to be preferred to one which is long and involved.    See my post God, Symmetry and Beauty in Science II for non-elegant thoughts on this.

MY FAITH AS A CATHOLIC

The picture I’ll give as the structure of my Catholic belief, a tree analog, will be unorthodox but, I hope, not heretical.   It will reflect my faith as it has developed during and since my conversion.²

  • SOIL: The Trinity–God, the Father, above us; God, the Son, beside us; God, the Holy Spirit, within us.
  • ROOTS:    Dogma and Doctrine: The Incarnation, The Passion and Resurrection, the Immaculate Conception, The Eucharist & Transubstantiation, Apostolic Succession, the Primacy of Peter as Bishop of Rome; the Seven Sacraments, Scripture.
  • TRUNK:   The Church
  • BRANCHES:  Liturgy, Theology, Sacred Orders–religious and lay, the Sacraments in Parish Life, Missionary Life, Prayer and Devotion.
I’ll admit that this representation is, perhaps, forced in order to make a comparison with the enterprise of science.    Nevertheless, there is a bedrock of faith, a soil–a belief in the Trinity Godhead–that nourishes my religious beliefs, and it is true that dogma and doctrine are the roots of my Catholic faith.    I invite the reader to draw his/her own tree of belief.
NOTES

¹THE LAKATOS SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROGRAMME AS A MODEL FOR HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

The best model for how science works is the Lakatos Scientific Research Programme, depicted in the diagram below:

Lakatos “Research Progamme” for Science.
By Robert Kurland

I’ve discussed this in Chapter 2 of “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth,” but have not used it in this article, in order to make a better comparison with Catholic faith.

²OTHER POSTS ON MY CATHOLIC FAITH

The Pearl of Great Price–Pascal’s Wager Revisited , Top-down to Jesus–On Bypassing the Road to DamascusAre We Hard-Wired for FaithGod’s Gift to Man–The Transforming Power of Music, Suffering: A Catholic| Jewish Perspective, among many others

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest

2 thoughts on “Faith as a Scientist, Faith as a Catholic”

  1. Pingback: Catholic Anti-science: Hypocrisy or Truth? – The American Catholic

  2. Want to make a fashionable 21st century atheist with pretensions of being guided by science head pop? Remind her that the defining theory of cosmology was named “Big Bang” by atheists in order to mock the theory. Remind the atheist that despite the evidence, in the first half of the 20th century atheists cooked up a creationist theory they called “Steady State” in order to preserve their unscientific dogma that the material universe we see in the skies always existed with no beginning. If that dogma was good enough for the Greeks who lived long before Ptolemy then it was good enough for these modern atheists. This Steady State theory was featured in public school science textbooks used well into the 1970s, long after real scientists had discredited it.

    Never ever let an atheist pretend to own empirical science.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.