[Part 4 in a multi-part series on Science & Religion from an LDS perspective.  Previous entries in the series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3]

“Faith” is almost universally considered to be a religious term…and not without reason, as there are 368 sections of scripture throughout the LDS standard works that discuss it.

Often, to a person on the science side of the debate, “faith” is not only a religion term, but a derogatory term at that.  “You (a religious believer) depend on ‘faith’“, you might hear, “while we (the science side) rely on fact”.

Is ‘fact’ really the opposite of ‘faith’?  Would it surprise anyone to learn exactly how much science depends on those so-called religious pillars of ‘faith’ and ‘testimony’?

Let’s imagine a hypothetical conversation.  (For fun, you can try this with someone you know who insists that faith is only for ‘religious people’):

Q: Is there a planet ‘Neptune’ in our solar system?

(Probable answer: ‘Yes’)

Q: How do you know?  Have you been there? Have you seen it?

(Probable answer: ‘No’)

Q: Then how do you know there’s really a planet ‘Neptune’?

(Answers could range from science textbooks, or other materials that attest to Neptune’s existence)

Q: So, someone writes it in a book and you just believe it?  Isn’t that having ‘faith’ in the ‘testimony’ of others?

(Not so, comes a likely retort, lots of other people have observed and collected innumerable amounts of clear, unmistakable scientific evidence that Neptune actually exists…)

Q: Okay, THEY have evidence (or say they do, anyway)…but YOU do not.  You, personally, have never seen nor have any evidence that Neptune actually exists.  You have not researched it nor witnessed it yourself, but rather are taking “Their” word for it.
 
The point is not to suggest some vast conspiracy of science about Neptune’s existence, but rather than the vast majority of “facts” that the average person (even the average scientist) claims to ‘know’, are really just accepting the testimony of others on faith, without having ever personally seen evidence of any of it.

How science really works:  Scientist A makes a discovery, and makes his conclusions known to others.  Scientists B, C, and D analyze the evidence and/or reproduce the steps themselves to check the discovery.  They also report their conclusions.

Now—here’s the point—Scientists E, F, G, and the other thousands of scientists worldwide will read the findings of A,B,C, and D in some scientific journal or something and will NOT reproduce the discovery on their own—they will accept the finding of those four scientists on ‘faith’ and continue forward.

If every scientist had to personally corroborate every scientific finding from the beginning of human civilization forward, scientific progress would grind to a complete standstill!  No scientist can possibly hope to personally verify every fact in every textbook and scientific journal even from one year to the next—having faith in the testimony of others is not only a characteristic of science, it’s fundamental to it!

This process works because Scientist E knows Scientist A is an ‘authority’ in whatever field he/she is reporting on.  (If, say, a marine biologist reported a discovery of a new planet in the solar system, this would be more of a ‘red flag’ and would create some doubt)  Furthermore, scientific discoveries are usually published in established scientific journals which have a reputation for reliability.  In this case, then, it is easier to accept this kind of testimony without personally verifying it, because the person’s authority in the field in question lends them more credibility.

(While rare, science does occasionally have problems with scientists falsifying data.  See this article from Germany, for example, about a 2005 scandal concerning faked data on ancient human skulls.  Note the quote that science “now has to revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 BC”.  Why is that?  Because other scientists had taken the original reported finding of the first scientist as ‘fact’ without personal verification, and had based their own research on it being true—simply because of the testimony of someone who was a supposed authority in the field.  While this sort of scandal is relatively rare in science, it does serve as an example of the role that ‘faith’ and ‘testimony’ really play in scientific progress.)

Note the following two situations:  Is there a fundamental difference between the two?

(1)  Scientist A discovers, say, a new nebula in the sky through a powerful telescope. Scientist B, C, and D corroborate the story by witnessing it themselves and reporting their experience.  Most others, without ever seeing the nebula themselves, believe in their testimony and accept the existence of a nebula as ‘fact’.

(2) Person A is visited by an angel and is shown golden plates.  Persons B, C, and D corroborate the story by witnessing the angel and the golden plates themselves and testify to that effect.  Others, without seeing the plates themselves, believe their testimony and accept the existence of those plates (and of angels) as ‘truth’.

But, you might object, each scientist from E forward *could* verify scientist A’s discovery if they wanted to—just because they don’t, doesn’t mean they *can’t*, because the scientific evidence that A-D found is still there if E, F, or G wanted to take the time to research it themselves.

Not necessarily…  In today’s modern world, we’re way beyond buying a $50 telescope at Wal-mart, sticking it in your backyard, and personally confirming all the discoveries that you just read about in “Astronomy” magazine.  Many modern scientific discoveries require very specific and powerful resources that are just not available to the common person…or even the common astronomer.

Likewise, many modern discoveries regarding subatomic particles require very large particle accelerators—it is literally impossible for the majority of scientists to personally verify many modern discoveries related to atoms or the far reaches of the cosmos even if they had a mind to.  Most people have to take the word of those scientists who have access to those resources on faith—they really have no other choice. 

(Some scientific discoveries are limited by remote location—the bottom of the ocean, for example—where it’s difficult if not impossible for other people to travel there and confirm the research of those who did.  Some science is time-dependent as well, where celestial bodies or events—comets, or super-novae, for example—have only a limited period of time where they can be observed and analyzed.  Once they’ve disappeared or moved on, everyone is forced to accept the testimony and resulting data of those who did witness it during that time period—there’s no chance of going back and confirming it themselves…)

The issue of ‘authority’ in regards to accepting testimony is a curious one.  If a doctor tells us we have “monochloritekilopiosis” (some medical condition we’ve never heard of), we usually just accept it without question.  The doctor is the ‘authority’ on medical conditions and even though we have no personal proof (or any evidence at all other than vague symptoms), we accept it because the doctor is, you know, just supposed to know these kinds of things.

(Likewise, when we buy expensive drugs in little blue pills that are supposed to treat this particular condition.  Are they for real?  Maybe they’re just jelly beans, and the drug company is depending on the “placebo effect” to create profits.  Could we prove it wasn’t?)

Is religion that different?   What makes the role of, say, a prophet different than that of a doctor, since “religion” is essentially the former’s “field of expertise” just like medicine is for the latter.  Assuming it's not really feasible for the common man to prove or disprove any assertion of either one—do we hold the former to a different standard of proof than we do the latter?  Are we more willing to accept the assertions of one at face value on faith versus the other?

The bottom line: both science and religion are closer to each other than usually admitted when it comes to “faith”, “testimony”, and the idea of “authority” which creates the credibility for others to believe the testimony in the first place.  "Faith" is not just a religious concept--virtually everything anyone's ever read or learned in school is taken on faith in the end...and that's normal.  Coming to understand the role of faith in secular life can prepare someone to understanding faith in regards to religion...and how similar they really are in the end.

Next: The problem with "Intelligent Design"