REASON, FAITH AND SCIENTIFIC PROOF - SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND REASONABLE FAITH IN RELIGIOUS CONTEXT

REASON, FAITH AND SCIENTIFIC PROOF 

 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND REASONABLE FAITH IN RELIGIOUS CONTEXT

Stes de Necker

Scientific Proof

Scientific Evidence

The phrase “scientific evidence” has become part of the vernacular – thrown about like a hot potato during discussions of major environmental, health, social and religious issues. 

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media, many scientists have argued that there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,".

We’ve heard numerous mentions of “scientific evidence”, indicating the importance of the issue and the need for action. This evidence is presented by proponents in much the same way that evidence is given in a court case, usually to back up policies or decisions that will impact people’s lifestyles. But, unlike in a court case, we are rarely told exactly where the evidence comes from and why it’s evidence.

In summary, a scientist creatively develops a theory which may be falsified by testing the theory against evidence or known facts. In contrast, evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory.

Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Scientific evidence however relies on data, and it is crucial for researchers to ensure that the data they collect is representative of the “true” situation. This means using proved or appropriate ways of collecting and analysing the data and ensuring the research is conducted ethically and safely.

Take for instance the recent neonicotinoid issue.

If a researcher wants to prove that use of a pesticide does not affect bees flying about in the environment where the chemical is normally used, they will need to test two different scenarios.

One hive of bees will have to go about their business out in the field while being exposed to the pesticide. A second hive of bees will have to be in the same general environmental location as the first hive (to ensure both hives experience the same overall living conditions), but remain completely uncontaminated by the pesticide throughout the test.

It’s obvious how impossible this would be to manage under natural conditions, where no one can control the drift of chemical droplets or the movement of tiny insects across the landscape! In this case, completely field-based studies may not exist, but it would be misleading to say that a “lack of field studies” means that the pesticide does not affect bees.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

Background Beliefs

A person's assumptions or beliefs about the relationship between observations and a hypothesis will affect whether that person takes the observations as evidence. These assumptions or beliefs will also affect how a person utilizes the observations as evidence.

When rational observers have different background beliefs, they may draw different conclusions from the same scientific evidence. For example, Priestley, working with phlogiston theory, explained his observations about the decomposition of mercuric oxide using phlogiston. In contrast, Lavoisier, developing the theory of elements, explained the same observations with reference to oxygen. Note that a causal relationship between the observations and hypothesis does not exist to cause the observation to be taken as evidence, but rather the causal relationship is provided by the person seeking to establish observations as evidence.

A more formal method to characterize the effect of background beliefs is Bayesian inference. In Bayesian inference, beliefs are expressed as percentages indicating one's confidence in them. One starts from an initial probability (a prior), and then updates that probability using Bayes' theorem after observing evidence. As a result, two independent observers of the same event will rationally arrive at different conclusions if their priors (previous observations that are also relevant to the conclusion) differ.

The importance of background beliefs in the determination of what observations are evidence can be illustrated using deductive reasoning, such as syllogisms. If either of the propositions is not accepted as true, the conclusion will not be accepted either.

Philosophic versus scientific views of scientific evidence

The philosophical community has investigated the logical requirements for scientific evidence by examination of the relationship between evidence and hypotheses, in contrast to scientific approaches which focus on the candidate facts and their context. 

Bechtel, as an example of a scientific approach, provides factors (clarity of the data, replication by others, consistency with results arrived at by alternative methods and consistency with plausible theories) useful for determination of whether observations may be considered scientific evidence.

There are a variety of philosophical approaches to decide whether an observation may be considered evidence; many of these focus on the relationship between the evidence and the hypothesis.

Carnap recommends distinguishing such approaches into three categories: classificatory (whether the evidence confirms the hypothesis), comparative (whether the evidence supports a first hypothesis more than an alternative hypothesis) or quantitative (the degree to which the evidence supports a hypothesis).

Achinstein provides a concise presentation by prominent philosophers on evidence, including Carl Hempel (Confirmation), Nelson Goodman (of grue fame), R. B. Braithwaite, Norwood Russell Hanson, Wesley C. Salmon, Clark Glymour and Rudolf Carnap.

Based on the philosophical assumption of the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis, a mathematical criterion for evaluation of evidence has been conjectured, with the criterion having a resemblance to the idea of Occam's Razor that the simplest comprehensive description of the evidence is most likely correct.

It states formally, "The ideal principle states that the prior probability associated with the hypothesis should be given by the algorithmic universal probability, and the sum of the log universal probability of the model plus the log of the probability of the data given the model should be minimized."

This philosophical belief in "hypothesis testing" as the essence of science is prevalent among both scientists and philosophers. It is important to note that this hypothesis does not take into account all of the activities or scientific objectives of all scientists.

Faith and reason

Since the early days of Christianity, there were two clearly identifiable streams present, namely those who practiced an essentially existentialist faith and those who accentuated the reasonable aspect of their belief. 

Today, more than before, it is a great challenge for Christians to integrate their faith with ‘scientific proof’.

An existentialist faith

What is existentialist faith? It a trust in God which is practiced and experienced in all aspects of daily life.

This faith normally flows from a particular commitment to God. For such believers, this is a way of life - spirituality is at the center of their whole existence. For them it makes little sense to speak about spirituality if you do not experience it. Since most of these existential believes do not accentuate reason - for them it is not really important what science thinks!

An intellectual belief

What is "intellectual belief"? This is a set of religious convictions which grow out of intellectual reasoning. 

During earlier epochs, when the ancient worldview were still prevalent, intellectual Christians used reason not only to formulate their belief, but also to argue for it against the prevalent non-Christian views of the time. Many of the early Christian fathers were educated in Greek philosophy. 

This lead to the rise of Christian philosophy - especially of the Augustinian (derived form Platonic philosophy) and Thomist (referring to Thomas Aquinas and derived from Aristotelian philosophy) varieties. 

With the rise of science - the rational-empirical study of things which requires physical proof - it became clear that it is impossible to proof the existence of God.

But the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), himself a Christian, argued that there are certain limits to pure reason - that is, to what extend pure reason can arrive at real (empirical) knowledge.

And this allows for faith to exist next to science. Although we could rationally argue for our faith, we will never be able to proof it in any scientific sense.

For the intellectual Christian it is nonetheless important to find a rational basis for his or her faith.

They do not have a problem to accept the basic scientific views about the world, although they reject the view that science have (or will ever have) all the answers.

For many believers, "scientific belief" is in some sense the balance between faith and reason.

A reasonable faith

It seems that the most rewarding form of religious life is when science, faith and reason are fully part of our lives.  It is not only rewarding in the sense that such a person can experience the joy of practical faith in the framework of intellectual integrity.

Although we understand that all human knowledge is partial and temporary, we also know that people's intellect require convincing them of the trustworthiness of religious faith.

At the same time, their spiritual needs require a grounding in practical faith.

With intellectual growth comes freedom from all the many rules and regulations of legalistic faith, but this freedom is contained within the boundaries of a spiritual relationship with God.  With spiritual growth comes the deeply personal intuitive knowledge of God that enables us to overcome and be victorious in all circumstances. 

As we develop our own perspectives, the potential for conflict with long-held communal views will force us to involve others in our own process of growth - some will resist these perspectives, but others will accompany us on the way.

Reason and intuition (faith is intuitive trust) are not disconnected faculties - they are interconnected in a fundamental way, so that their development and integration into a balanced harmony forms part of the process of intellectual growth.

It is only when both the intellect and the inner intuitive experience of God are synthesized, that the ideal of the religious person, who is both "wise" and "spiritual" can be realized.