Introduction
There is a group of people who argue that science is just a myth and, like other religious doctrines, it is based on faith. For example, Paul claims that “It [science] is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man and not necessarily the best” (315). However, if the most accepted definitions of faith and science are used, and the two fields are critically analyzed, it can be strongly argued that the scientific Worldview is not in any manner influenced by faith. Faith has been defined as the strong belief in something or someone without any proof and is based solely on trust. On the contrary, scientific worldviews are defined as ideas a person or group of persons hold on a particular subject matter and can be tested by empirical observations and consist of falsifiable components. While scientific worldviews cannot be fully empirically tested, they do not rely on traditional religious themes, faith, or taboos. Therefore, for a person to accept a certain worldview, they do not need to have faith but rather have to sum up all they know about the world and evaluate if it matches a particular concept and opinions.
Faith is Not Based on Evidence
Faith in Christianity is not based on verifiable evidence but a belief in what a person has not seen, as mentioned in the bible. In other religious beliefs, such as Islam and Hinduism, faith is also based on blindly believing what you have not seen, such as the afterlife. The scientific revolution in the 17th century conflicted with most religious doctrines that were based on faith, and ever since, science has always conflicted with theology. This argument is supported by the conflict theory proposed by John William Draper, who first proposed the theory. The theory proposes that religious doctrines and scientific worldviews conflict because one is based on faith while the other is based on observable evidence and reason.
The success of science is a result of actions that are based on reason and logic. For a particular field to qualify as a science, it must be based on observations and logic from those observations. A scientific Worldview that comes from this school of thought does not have to be backed by faith to be acceptable. This is because the evidence provided would mean that the observation is true, and therefore no faith would be needed. Faith, on the other hand, assumes that humans are capable of having a deeper understanding that is beyond reason and logic. Faith is most applicable while dealing with non-scientific Worldviews. Some people argue that a person needs to have faith to believe in particular scientific theories, such as evolution. However, if a person takes time to read evolution theories and observes animals and trees, it can be concluded that it is a correct argument.
Scientific Worldviews Do Not Have Virtues
Acceptance of a particular worldview does not require a person to believe in certain religious doctrines, such as the virtue of being morally good. Moral and ethical behaviors can be linked to faith as most people who subscribe to them believe that the world or God has a way of punishing those who do not do what is virtuous. Virtuous behaviors involve people demonstrating high moral standards and are more common in people who believe in a religious doctrine. Moral excellence can also be observed in people who follow unscientific worldviews and believe in a certain superpower that could punish them if they act in a manner that is not good for society. People who subscribe to scientific worldviews do not have to consider if they align with moral principles, although the conditioning of society may still influence them. For instance, a scientist could argue against dressing in a particular manner but still be guided by social conditions while choosing what to wear. Therefore, people who subscribe to true scientific worldviews will subconsciously be influenced by faith, but faith has no relevance when arguing or acting logically.
Scientific Worldviews Do Not Offer Consolations
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and many other religious beliefs offer consolations to people that good things will happen to those who believe when they die. The beliefs also largely involve believing there is a punishment for those who do not believe in the doctrines and those that treat other people unfairly. For these consolations to work, the believer has to have faith in existence in some aspects of life, such as life after death, the existence of God, and Karma, among others. Unscientific worldviews not interlinked to religious doctrines also offer consolations by having a person believe in something without evidence of its existence. It is impossible to offer consolations using scientific worldviews since they are based on testable empirical evidence meaning that a person can only be consoled by what is true and factual.
Scientific Worldviews Lack Moral Relevance
A true scientific worldview does not have to be morally right, but it has to be verifiable by evidence. On the other hand, faith mainly relies on moral principles and is not based on any form of evidence. Rather it is the principle of vice in any religion (Richard 318). This is because scientific worldviews are not exact truths despite a huge push by scientific scholars to prove to people that science is backed by evidence. Studies show that acceptance or rejection of scientific philosophy is largely influenced by the dominant science in the region a person lives in. For example, Paul claims that “It [science] is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man and not necessarily the best” (315). Morality is closely associated with faith since people need to convince themselves of what is right and wrong without using any tool to measure it.
Scientific Worldviews Are Unforced
Unlike faith which requires believers to follow religious doctrines set by divine creatures’ world views that are scientifically based encourage individuals to examine and access the truth in a particular belief. Therefore, scholars have agreed that since one is voluntary and the other forced, faith and scientific worldview can not be possessed by one person (Launonen 5). Faith is usually fixed and cannot be changed, unlike the scientific world views which change as a person gains more information on a particular subject matter. Religious people who seek to communicate and convince others to adopt their faith normally require believers to accept the revealed truth without questioning it. Accepting a particular scientific worldview from a person resonates occurs naturally, and nobody persuades others to subscribe to their worldview.
Relationship between Religious Viewpoint and Reason
For centuries reason has been considered to play a pivotal role in justifying religious viewpoints. Since religious doctrines are based on faith, there has been much interest from religious philosophers and scholars on how the two are related. It has been discovered that different religious beliefs cohere with different reasoning patterns and rationales. Most religions are based on faith which is the belief in a certain doctrine and submission to a powerful creature. As such, faith only occurs in circumstances where human knowledge is limited, meaning that religious viewpoints rely on reason until a situation where it gets limited. For people with great reasoning capacity, it has been established that the human brain can establish the existence of a supernatural creature without any supernatural help (Launonen 3). It is also true that people who cannot use strenuous reasoning in religious matters rely on faith, leading to the creation of two different but correct worldviews.
From a Christian point of view, the existence of God can be established through reason and observing natural phenomena. Explanation of religious concepts using religion is observed in the bible, where St. Paul explained that the presence of God could be confirmed by observing nature. The relationship between religious viewpoint and reason can either be evidence-sensitive or evidence-insensitive. Sensitive evidence involves reason that is explained by truths that the entire population can observe. An example of an evidence-sensitive case is the example mentioned above, where St. Paul convinced people of the presence of God using nature. Evidence-insensitive reasons are those that involve a single individual. These include personal victories and revelations that a believer may claim.
The relationship between people who take a religious stand and those who believe in reason and logic is often contradictory. The two parties are known to be continuously conflicting ideologies although they also agree in various aspects. Religious people say that even though science is just a form of religion, it has been given priority over other religions. It is suggested that children or the parents of the children need to be given the autonomy to choose what science their children will take. This reasoning needs to be revised since schools in the American system systematically teach science; hence hard to make it optional for young children. People who support the cognitive science side of the argument say that belief-forming processes that underline the belief in God are unreliable (Launonen 3). For example, Karl Marx, a socialist and a popular non-believer, argued that religion was a limiting factor and obstacle to a scientific revolution. This is because, for a long-time, religion has tried to answer questions that are best left to science (Dawkins 319). However, despite the many differences, there are areas where scientific worldviews align with religious viewpoints.
Conclusion
For a person to accept a certain worldview, they do not need to have faith but rather sum up all they know about the world and evaluate if it matches a particular concept. Therefore, a person relies more on reason, logic, previous experiences, verified sources, and scientific experiments to decide on the worldview to adopt and the ones they disagree with. For instance, a person guided by reality would have never encountered anything spiritual, making it a worldview that can be proved by science. Moreover, all scientific worldviews do not focus on morality, virtues, or offering consolation.
Works Cited
Dawkins, Richard. “Is Science a Religion?” Humanist in Canada, vol. 31, no. 4, 1998.
Feyerabend, Paul. “Science in a Free Society.” Verso Books, 2018.
Launonen, Lari. “Debunking argument’s Gain Little from Cognitive Science of Religion.” Zygon®, 2021, Web.