Question Are Scientists who hold strong religious beliefs, or 'faith' as it may be called, scientists of a lesser calibre? I ask this because traditional scientific method entails entering into scientific work with a clear and unbiased mind in relation to the subject. If there are two scientists, one of 'faith' and one of no religious persuasion both trying to prove a particular point in say, evolution, is the scientist of 'faith' not heavily inluenced by his need to prove his faith true in his method. While the other scientist may have a more reliable opinion as he relies on reason and scientific method alone?

Accepted:
April 23, 2006

Comments

I think it will entirely depend upon what particular area of science the scientist is working in, but for the most part, there is no reason to think that even the best scientists could not be religious. Now, certainly a scientist whose work was in evolutionary biology could not be an excellent scientist and at the same moment accept creationism (or, as it has been strategically renamed more recently, intelligent design theory), for these two are incompatible. But I see no reason why someone could not believe there is a God and also do superior work in the area of inorganic chemistry, say.

But it is even more complicated than this, I think. People are magnificently complex beings, and one of their most puzzling complexities is the ability to "partition" their lives in such a way as to isolate one area of their life from other areas, and thus avoid noticing or being moved by the contradictions that might be revealed if the "partitions" were somehow removed.

(Before saying what follows, I will make a disclaimer: I do not believe there is a God or any god, and so my assessments of those who do are quite possibly biased.) I really think that religious people, in particular, are especially adept at this sort of "partitioning," because if one looks at the ways in which they make judgments in the rest of their lives (whether in intellectual pursuits like science, or in ethics, or in playing cards), they seem to function just like the rest of us. But then they seem to be able to move seamlessly from what look like very rational and logical activities to praying to beings whose properties they do not (and concede they cannot) fully understand, whose putative doctrines they accept without any form of independent assessment or appraisal, and before whom they regard themselves as debased and worthless. Would you want someone who believed such things making life-or-death decisions for you? Of course you would, if they happen to be the person right now flying your airplane (which they are entirely competent to do, because they do not do that "on faith"), or driving your bus (also not done "on faith"), or for that matter, perhaps, running the lab at the nearby university (which they also do not do with their "faith"). Since most people of "faith" manage to isolate that bit of extraordinary cognizing from what they do in the rest of their lives, and the way they do it, it seems entirely possible that even the most brilliant scientists could do their science, and then take off their lab coats and go to church--never noticing and heedless of the fact that what they do in their "day job" is not entirely consistent with what they say or do when on their knees praying.

No, there's no reason whatsoever that being religious should make someone less successful as a scientist. Whether one is a "person of faith" has nothing to do with whether one is capable of reason and the like. Any suggestion to the contrary is, frankly, not just insulting but ignorant.

Moreover, the question contains several other assumptions that are simply false. First, a religious scientist need have no "need to prove his faith true" by scientific means. She may simply think that science and faith don't really intersect all that much, not because she "partitions" or "compartmentalizes", but for much the same reason she might think science and poetry don't intersect all that much. Second, a non-religious scientist may well have some irrational investment in, say, the truth of some hypothesis that she formulated as a graduate student and interpret all her data in terms of it. Being non-religious doesn't insulate one from bias. Third, it is simply a myth that scientists rely upon "reason and scientific method alone". There are ineliminably creative elements to such work.

People on the "religion" side of the science v. religion controversy are often accused of ignorance about science. And rightly so. What's less often noted is how ignorant those on the "science" side are about religion. There is absolutely no reason a person of faith could not do outstanding work in evolutionary biology. (I would have thought Kenneth Miller a pretty good example of such a person.) Creationism is utterly optional.

I certainly do not agree that creationism is "utterly optional" for a good scientist, on the obvious ground that it is bad science (or else pseudo-science). That was my point.

On the other hand, I accept that someone who was religious could do exceptional work in evolutionary biology--either by partitioning in the way I noted, or by conceiving of evolution as part of God's plan, or (as Heck proposes) by seeing religion as no more related to science than poetry is. I would add, however, that most religions I am familiar with seem to have a great deal more intersection with science, in their putatively factual assertions about the world and how things work, than poetry does. Keeping these intersections from generating conflict, I continue to think, is the partitioning trick.

But look, some philosophers (Heck included) both defend and practice religion, in which case it is no surprise that these philosophers would think that all talk of conflict between religion and science (or reason) is just insult and ignorance. Plainly, this conclusion (and the judgment of others' dissenting views) is debatable!