Does Science Contradict Faith?

Does Science Contradict Faith?

When people say science contradicts faith, they usually define faith as "Believing without evidence". In this Ready Reasons episode, Trent Horn explains why the traditional understanding of faith is not contradicted by science.

Copyright Catholic Answers, Inc. 2016

STAY CONNECTED!

HELP US make more videos like this one!

About Trent Horn:

After his conversion to the Catholic Faith, Trent Horn earned a master's degree in theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville and is currently pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy from Holy Apostles College.

He serves as a staff apologist for Catholic Answers and specializes in teaching Catholics to graciously and persuasively engage those who disagree with them. Trent models that approach each week on the radio program Catholic Answers Live where he dialogues with atheists, pro-choice advocates, and other non-Catholic callers.

Trent is also a lecturer who travels throughout the world speaking on subjects related to the Catholic faith and the co-host of Hearts and Minds, a weekly radio program that discusses timely issues from an eternal perspective. In addition to being a public speaker, Trent is the author of three books: Answering Atheism, Persuasive Pro-life, and his latest book Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties.

Script:

When people say, “science contradicts faith,” they usually define “faith” as “believing without evidence” or “believing in spite of whatever the evidence may say.” Science may contradict that definition of faith, but not the traditional understanding of faith.

In the broadest sense, faith is just a kind of trust we have in another person or thing. We might say, for example: “I have faith that John will finish our group project.”

Even scientists have faith that the laws of nature will operate the same way in all times and places—even though they can’t prove the laws of nature will always do this.

For Catholics, faith is “the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us” (CCC 1814). If God does exist, then it’s perfectly reasonable for people to trust, or have faith, in God—just as we would have faith or trust in other people. This includes trusting what God has revealed to an individual through something like prayer; or in a public way through things like the Bible or the teachings of the Church.

But doesn’t having faith mean you don’t have evidence for what you believe? After all, if you had enough evidence, you wouldn’t need faith.

But consider this: according to the United States Parachute Association, 99.99% of skydivers survive their jumps. Now imagine you’re wearing a parachute; you know it’s been packed correctly; you step toward the door of the plane; and as you look down at the ground 2 miles beneath your feet, you see the tops of the clouds passing by.

I ask you this: are you nervous? Probably! Even with so much evidence that you will survive jumping out of an airplane, you still need to trust that evidence. You still need to make a “leap of faith.”

This is not a blind leap, or belief without evidence. It’s a reasonable belief that trusts a conclusion based on the weight of the evidence.

For Catholic Answers, I’m Trent Horn. Thanks for watching.

[Drew]

On the one hand science requires faith, a faith “that certain principles or certain bodies of knowledge are in fact true.” On the other hand, this faith is not blind, for, as one subject put it, “you are going to have to back it up with some empirical evidence.” This is a seeming contradiction that trips up many people. Science builds up faith in its concepts, principles, and conclusions through repeated practice or testing, and when its faith is challenged it returns again to examine the facts and see if its faith is justified by them. This is what makes science an empirical enterprise, the fact that it ultimately grounds and justifies its faith by appeal to observable evidence. The idea of an empirically-based faith is hard for many people to grasp, especially if they have been raised or indoctrinated into believing that “faith” is only a reason for believing something when you don’t have evidence. The term “faith” does have both connotations, meaning “belief” but also “reason to believe.” Science has no use for the latter, but it is not true that a scientist “has no faith” in science: he has faith in it, but a faith that is grounded in empirical evidence and reasoning. By confusing the two notions of faith, common sense creates a false dichotomy between faith and empirical justification. Science unites them.

[nelsonvecchione]

My wife insists on going to Yoga classes. I believe the Yoga participation to be a mortal sin. Would this be grounds for an annulment?

[scarfhs]

If you have evidence that shows that the certainty of the existence of God is 99.99 percent why have you been hiding it for 2000 years?

[jimmyhayden]

"Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen". The Bible never says "blessed are those who properly evaluate the weight of the evidence". It also does not condemn people for believing despite having zero evidence. This new definition of faith simply is made up by apologists to make it sound more reasonable. No Christian will tell you that their "faith" is merely the most reasonable inference that can be made from the evidence. That is something scientists say. Its almost as if Trent is trying to equate "faith" with a form of "scientific induction", Which again makes no sense when you could just say "I believe this as an inductive inference of the evidence". Faith has always meant that extra step. The step where you believe something to be true even when the evidence does not directly point to it.
Also, scientists do not use the faith that the laws of nature will always operate the same way, rather scientists have failed to prove or observe that they can change, so they tentatively accept that they can not. If evidence arises that disproves the assumption, scientists adapt and change their theories.
And also-also with the parachute thing, the willingness to jump in not solely based on the evaluation of the evidence suggesting it is safe, but also the propensity of the individual to experience fear. An experienced skydiver becomes less afraid of jumping not because he "gets better at evaluating the evidence" but because he "has trained himself to overcome the fear". Here Trent is trying to argue that all rational people always act rationally, which is obviously false. An aware ration person will likely be able to admit they have irrational fears, but that does not negate their capacity for rationality, on their physical execution of it.
From these three examples, it is easy to see that apologists will often change the meanings of words and phrases slightly so you want to catch it, in order to make you come to the completely absurd conclusions. The devil is in the detail, so PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE!

[QuTeBug]

I would like to hear more about what the Church teaches about creation in the light of Gods creation “evolving” How the Church reveals Creation being a part of, not contrary to evolution.
My daughter is a physical archeologist working in her field of study. I have a grandson who has Darwin’s face tattooed on his arm with the skeletal bones of what scientists call “Lucy” tattooed as well...they constantly remind me of how deceived I am. I remain calm, and gave them to Mary but I’d like to have knowledge about this subject

[wilfojac]

He says right there " if god does exist then we can that statement has no value on reality until you demonstrate that god does exist

[stephengalanis]

If you can substitute the word "hope" for faith and keep the same grammatical sense, then just use "hope". For the other occasions when faith is being used in a knowledge claim, replace that with "pretending to know things I don't know".

1. There's no evidence for the Judeo-Christian god. In the skydiver analogy this isn't 99.9% certainty that you'll survive the jump. Rather, it's jumping without any reason or evidence to think the parachute exists.

2. There's a world of epistemological difference between religion and science. The scientific method is inherently geared towards correcting it's mistakes, and updating itself according to new information. Religious propositions are not like this. Come on Trent, tell us with a straight face that the Magisterium could ever reverse an ex cathedra dogma because "oops, we made a mistake". That cannot happen. Religion is the opposite of science. But then again, Rome's dogmas are without exception unfalsifiable. That's the opposite of scientific. We don't get to use the word "true" to describe something that cannot be verified.

3. As has already been pointed out, you're playing fast and loose with the definition of "faith". Theologically, Catholics cannot even say what role faith plays in salvation. You believe salvation is by faith + works. Great. We're clear on the works part, but what faith does a Catholic need? It's not simply that God exists. Even the demons believe that, apparently. It's not trusting that Jesus took your punishment on him, because Catholicism rejects all penal substitution. I cannot make any grammatical or conceptual sense of what a Catholic means by faith. It's clear that mostly it gets used in an epistemological way. "I know x is true" Why? "by faith". When used like that - as a means to knowledge - faith is unreliable. There's no limit to what can be justified by an appeal to faith - from lazy eyed pink dragons, to orbiting tea pots, to a flat earth, to the Massacre of Mérindol.

[freethoughtgreg]

I found this pretty dishonest. I may have a reasonable belief that my parachute will open and a small chance it wont open, but I know the risks and assume the risks when I jump.
If you had no statistics or evidence for how safe a parachute is, would you still jump? If you did that would seem pretty crazy, your just taking your instructors word for it with out any evidence or reasearch. Maybe that would be a more fair comparison.

[lacontrabasse]

Although you deny it, Trent Horn, the definition of religious faith is belief without evidence. Your denial of that fact at the start of your video does not alter the fact. Your presentation of an equivocation fallacy, as an argument that scientific evidence does not conflict with religious faith, does not impress anyone who knows what an equivocation fallacy is.
You are using the word faith in different senses as though the meanings were the same, or equivalent.