Ang artikulo na binabanggit ko ay katha ng isang nangangalang ContemporaReformed at kanyang pinamagatang “Real Talk: Walang “Science” kung Walang “Faith.”
According to CR (ContemporaReformed), “Science isn’t opposed to faith because science itself is based on faith. Ito ay dahil mismong ang science ay naka-depende sa mga “faith assumptions” patungkol sa reality na hindi maaaring patunayan ng science.” Explaining further, CR said, “Ang tawag sa mga faith assumptions na ito ay preconditions of intelligibility. Ito ay sumasagot sa tanong na, “Ano ba dapat ang mga kalagayan o kundisyon sa reality na kailangan munang maging totoo para maging posible ang objective knowledge natin patungkol sa anumang bagay?”
I don’t know about CR, but I don’t think that faith assumption and precondition of intelligibility is the same thing. Faith assumptions are assumptions that may be false or true yet but for some practical or moral reasons to trust you just go alone with them while precondition of intelligibility are reality that must be consistent with itself like the Laws of Logic, the uniformity of nature, to shape our worldview…
OK, enough of the meanings. Let’s talk about science, assumption, and faith.
CR wrote, “Every scientific endeavor has to rely on these faith assumptions...”
So when CR talks about science and faith, what does he mean about the word “faith? “ If we look in a dictionary we see that the word faith has several meanings, but I will just concentrate on the first 2. One is that faith is a complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Second, faith is defined as a strong belief based on conviction rather than proof.
So according to CR, science itself is based on faith because every scientific endeavor relies on assumptions that may be false or true yet that are taken for granted because of reality that must be consistent with something that we need in order to make sense out of the world - Laws of logic, uniformity of nature, existence of a real physical world “out there,” the “I,” the existence of other “minds...” (Which presuppositionalist apologists call precondition of intelligibility).
But here’s the problem: Faith is NOT an assumption.
When we talk about faith, we are talking about a complete trust or confidence. On its second definition, faith is said to be based on conviction. Since science will always leave a certain amount of uncertainty on its assumptions, then we are not talking about faith. Let say that we assume the Sun will always shine tomorrow. Really? Are you 100% certain? We have a high confidence rate that the Sun will shine tomorrow because the supporting evidence of the claim is high BUT, in the face of new evidence or new information, the confidence rate changes.
A good example here is quantum physics. Back in the old days of Newton, we believe that the Law of Physics is fix and predictable. Then BOOM! Quantum physics entered the picture. We discovered that when we talk about quantum physics, the Laws of Logic doesn’t apply - electrons can be a wave and a particle at the same time (Have you heard about Schrodinger’s cat?). That quantum particle can be in different places at the same time (known as entanglement) etc. – All defying the laws of logic. That pissed off Einstein but Bohr won the bet.
In other words, science changes its assumptions when new information comes in. If science does not change its assumptions especially when new evidence and arguments show that the assumptions are untenable then its method won’t get close to the truth.
Since CR used the bible in his article, I think it would also be OK for me to use it. So here goes…
Faith is defined in Hebrews 11: 1
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (ASV)
Faith is a complete trust, an assurance (a guarantee) on what you believe (conviction) even without any visible evidence.
So faith is an assurance (a guarantee) and unlike assumptions, it doesn’t change. No amount of evidence or new information will change a guarantee. If you have faith (a guarantee on your conviction) in Jesus as “the Son of God” and that if you “believe it as true you get eternal life” no amount of proof, evidence and argument will change that.
Because most lay Christian believers (or those who really doesn’t understand their own holy book) are equivocating the meaning of faith with making assumptions, they say that science also have faith. Sadly, these “Christians” are the one who gives their faith a bad rep to non-believers like me.
If you cannot understand a simple word defined by Hebrews 11: 1, and if you cannot even understand what faith is, then how can you explain to me why I need to believe the Christian claim?
Tough luck, eh?
Until next time.
Ciao!
(Note: I have read ContemporaReformed entire article, but most are really off-topics. The real topic is Walang “Science” kung Walang “Faith and I guess this short 818 words article is enough to topple CR’s myth.)
