To say that science and faith are not mutually exclusive based on historical examples of the myriad scientists who were also theists is not sufficient in determining whether or not science and faith are mutually exclusive. Attempting to do so is argumentum ad hominem – just because there are examples of people did something or held to a particular view does not mean that they were rational, logical, or otherwise justified in what they advocated. They may have been, but the fact that they held a position does not in itself justify the position held.
To better illustrate that science and faith are not opposed perhaps we should observe the distinction between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism is the idea that the natural is all that there is. This is famously voiced by Carl Sagan, who asserted that “the cosmos is all that is, ever was, and ever will be.”[1] Metaphysical naturalism is a precommitment to the non-existence of the supernatural, or anything beyond nature. Such precommitments are not scientific, but are faith based. In short, metaphysical naturalists – who are necessarily atheistic – are as much people of faith as are theists. One might even argue that some metaphysical naturalists are in fact theistic when they worship nature as if it were a deity, albeit an impersonal one. Sagan again illustrates this theistic leaning when he says “Our loyalties are to the species and the planet. We speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive is owned not just to ourselves but also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring.”[2] While often extending to religious extent, at the very least metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy or worldview through which an advocate looks at the world and the experiencing of that world.
Jerry Coyne is illustrative of metaphysical naturalism, in noting that the theory of evolution is of spiritual benefit: “I can’t say that the study of evolution has considerably benefitted humanity, materially, but it certainly benefitted us mentally in a scholarly way and…if I can use that word… spiritually.”[3] In Coyne’s view there is a spiritual element at play, but not in the sense of supernatural. Coyne argues that “supernatural explanations…are never needed: we manage to understand the natural world just fine using reason and materialism. Furthermore supernatural explanations always mean the end of inquiry: that’s the way God wants it, end of story.”[4] While theistic scientists will scoff at Coyne’s historically inaccurate mischaracterization of the relationship of theism to inquiry, Coyne’s affirmation that supernatural explanations are never needed, further seems to contradict his recognition that “Most of us do need meaning, purpose, and moral guidance in our lives. How do we find them if we accept that evolution is the real story of our origin? That question is outside the domain of science.”[5] Yet Coyne also asserts that “the way you establish fact is by the scientific method or a version of it.[6] If supernatural explanations are never needed because there is nothing beyond the natural, and science is sufficient to answer all the natural questions, then where does one go to answer the questions of meaning, purpose, and morality? Presuming that the only acceptable method of determining fact is scientific method, coupled with the assertion that questions of meaning, purpose, and moral guidance are outside the domain of science, has huge worldview implications: it means that we can know no facts regarding meaning, purpose, and moral guidance. Upon what grounds and with what warrant, then, can metaphysical naturalism assign value or prescriptions as outcomes of inquiry? Despite the unavoidable contradiction here, Coyne does assign value and prescriptions. Coyne is right when he recognizes that the true story of our origin impacts everything –“how we are related to everything else…adds a sense of awe…”[7] Yet, rather than acknowledging a personal Creator, Coyne announces the grandeur of “blind, materialist, naturalistic process…add[ing] a lot of wonder to your appreciation of nature.”[8] He ascribes meaning and value to the process, worship (awe and appreciation) of nature, and prescribes (hopes) that everyone should “convert to evolution.”[9]
Coyne further asserts that the best reason to study evolution is because “it tells us the true story of our origins.”[10] It is evident at this point that Coyne draws no metaphysical distinction between microevolution – small scale adaptations over time within species, and macroevolution – large scale adaptations over time, with a precommitment to the idea that subtle adaptations over extended periods of time have brought forth new species. Coyne sees the two as expressions of the same process. Coyne goes even further in saying that this process accounts for our origins. This affirmation shows that Coyne – like Sagan (and every other metaphysical naturalist) – is operating on faith regarding events presumed in the distant past.
While microevolution is observed, macroevolution is not. Just as metaphysical naturalism is often conflated with methodological naturalism, so microevolution is often equated with macroevolution. While there are similarities, similarity is not sameness. If microevolution is reality, it offers no warrant for the faith in macroevolution. In the same way, if methodological naturalism is a necessary underpinning of the scientific method, then it likewise provides no justification for the faith precommitment of metaphysical naturalism. These differences are vital. Methodological naturalism and microevolution don’t contradict (Biblical) theism in the least – in fact, the Biblical calls to investigate and discover the natural realm do nothing to end an inquiry nor minimize the value of scientific (and other) pursuit.[11] In fact, they do the opposite, and have inspired some of the greatest scientists in history to world-changing inquiry and discovery.
It is worth noting that Jerry Coyne dedicates his book Why Evolution Is True to Dick (Richard) Lewontin, who likewise asserted that we can’t “allow a divine foot in the door” of inquiry.[12] These expressions of precommitment to metaphysical naturalism underscore that if supernatural explanations are excluded from inquiry, they are only excluded by a metaphysical naturalist precommitment – yet typically without transparency in acknowledging that the grounding of that precommitment is faith. By hiding behind a veil of pretended neutrality, metaphysical naturalism demands the dichotomy of faith and science and often represents theists, for example, as rationally inferior, as Dawkins does when he says, “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, or even because of, the lack of evidence.”[13] This seems an ironic critique, particularly in light of Dawkins’s faith precommitment to metaphysical naturalism.
Based on the ancient sage, Solomon’s counsel, precommitments absent evaluation of all available data are problematic: “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him.”[14] Everyone begins with presuppositions, and the validity of those presuppositions ought to be tested. Presuppositions should be held loosely and discarded if they do not correspond to reality. On the other hand, a precommitment is not held loosely nor subjected to the normal processes of evaluation. The Psalmist’s call to “taste and see that the Lord is good”[15] illustrates that while the Bible presupposes the reality of the God of the Bible, it also invites evaluation of the presupposition based on data in order to gain confidence beyond the presupposition. While any investigator in any discipline must begin with presuppositions, they should test those presuppositions. Without rigorous attention to that process, presupposition can turn to precommitment and blind the investigator to the truths uncovered otherwise in the process of inquiry. It is an ironic turn that Coyne and Dawkins both assert that supernatural answers end inquiry, and yet it is they who end the inquiry by saying there is no supernatural, and even if there is, it isn’t necessary (inquiry ended).
While Solomon warned against presuppositions unjustifiably being calcified as precommitments, he also warned that “the first to plead his case seems right until another comes and examines him.”[16] If metaphysical naturalism pleads the case of refusal to consider anything beyond the natural, methodological naturalism answers that the dichotomy of faith and science is a false dichotomy, and that metaphysical naturalism is not neutral, but rather a faith precommitment itself. Methodological naturalism refers to the method of handling natural data and pursuing inquiry relating to natural things and processes. The scientific method demands an evaluation of presuppositions regarding natural things and processes requiring that any theory regarding mechanics and processes be testable and ultimately tested. Because the scientific method is a method for testing natural processes, it must employ natural processes and only consider nature in its scope (having no tools for evaluating anything but the natural). Methodological naturalism is not a philosophy nor worldview, rather it is a method for evaluating aspects and process of nature. There is no implication of excluding the supernatural inherent in methodological naturalism. The questions of meaning, purpose, and morality are beyond the scope of science, but are answerable with other methodologies that don’t necessarily exclude supernatural inquiry. Thus, within methodological naturalism, science and faith should be linked and complementary. Note the Psalmist’s call to examine the stars,[17] for in their examination is made evident not only the magnitude of the stars but of their Creator as well. When one imagines the vastness of the heavens and the multitude of stars in them, we recognize that we owe our loyalty to that Creator – to discover all we can about the heavens which declare His glory, and in turn to discover Him.
The perceived dichotomy between faith (conviction that something is true) and the scientific method (a method for discerning truth in naturalistic contexts) is a false dichotomy, and that is demonstrated by both the metaphysical naturalist and the methodological naturalist. Both can engage in science, and both must have some basic beliefs (faith) in order to engage in the process of inquiry. The meaning, purpose and moral implications of inquiry and scientific process is, however, starkly differentiated between the two positions. Metaphysical naturalism employs faith in excluding the supernatural from any inquiry in order to provide evidence of its non-supernatural precommitment, and methodological naturalism, in not excluding supernatural explanations, leaves room for discovering truth in contexts that are not the domain of science (as Coyne aptly put it). One engages its inquiry with the prescribed outcome as worship and loyalty of impersonal nature, the other engages its inquiry recognizing that worship and loyalty may just be due a personal Creator. Faith and science are therefore necessarily and unavoidably linked. Failing to recognize this fundamental and integral aspect of scientific process limits – and perhaps eliminates altogether – the capacity for objective and successful inquiry.
[1] Carl Sagan, The Cosmos (Ballantine Books, 2013), 1.
[2] Sagan, The Cosmos (Ballantine Books, 2013), 316.
[3] Jerry Coyne, “Jerry Coyne: Why Evolution is True” Free Thought Matters (Freedom From Religion Foundation, n.d.), viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVv-5k4dlg0, 7:54-8:07.
[4] Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True (Penguin Books, 2010), 225.
[5] Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True, 225.
[6] Coyne, Free Thought Matters, 14:08-14.
[7] Coyne, Free Thought Matters, 10:08-35.
[8] Coyne, Free Thought Matters, 10:08-35.
[9] Coyne, Free Thought Matters, 11:54-57.
[10] Coyne, Free Thought Matters, 9:54-10:02.
[11] See Jeff Cox “Where Can Wisdom Be Found” in Biblical Foundations of Psychology and Counseling, Christopher Cone and Luther Smith, eds. (Exegetica Publishing,), 35-58.
[12] Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” in The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, viewed at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/.
[13] Richard Dawkins, “A Scientist’s Case Against God.” The Independent (London), April 20, 1992, 17.
[14] Proverbs 18:13.
[15] Psalm 34:8.
[16] Proverbs 18:17.
[17] Psalm 19.
