Science Doesn't Require Faith!

Every couple of years it seems I have a conversation with a religious person about some scientific principle or theory. Now, I'm not a scientist myself, but I do enjoy learning about the world and what scientists have discovered and what they continue to find. And even when I was religious, I never equated "believing in science" with "beliving in God". I believed what science said, because I could really review the evidence for myself. I believed in God, well because I wanted too and had reasons for doing so that had everything to do with magical thinking regarding interesting coincidences in my personal life and a great amount of confirmation bias that caused me to only "see" the things that confirmed my faith and to ignore the things that contradicted it. Of course, I didn't see it that way at the time.

So I can't for the life of me understand why, when the topic of evolution comes up, religious people often end conversations on the topic of evolution vs. creationism with "well, you have faith in evolution and I have faith in creationism - it all comes down to faith." It doesn't.

Let me put it this way. I actually do think the bible defines faith quite well in Hebrews 11:1

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Faith is all about hope and a substitute for understanding the things that can't be seen. Science, on the other hand, can be described as this:

Science is the process of asking questions, and testing hypotheses through observation, experimentation, and data collection, which produces evidence to discover and explain what can be seen.

I really think that if science classes in primary and seconday school focused more on scientific process rather and memorization of scientific facts, people would see that scientific "facts" are grounded in observable evidence and do not need to just be taken on faith. Enough ranting for now.

In related news, the children's book Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be by Daniel Loxton has been recognized as the Best Canadian Science Book for Young Readers. I highly recommend it!

This is Awesome

Thoughts on Expressing my Views

Dale McGowan recently posted a glowing review of The Humanist Approach to Happiness by Jennifer Hancock - a book that I have now placed on my own "to-read" list. A couple of the things that Dale said in this post really resonated with me. The first statement that hit me is one I have often felt myself:

For many years, virtually all of the books for nontheists had a kind of superhuman quality to them — stratospheric works of science or philosophy that blow your hair back with articulate rigor. I couldn’t read The End of Faith or pretty much anything by Russell or Hitchens without feeling both amazed and a little bit cowed by the intellectual horsepower.

I have definitely felt this way when reading Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan, and Shermer - to mention a few. There are many topics I would like to write about - but whenever I begin to draft a post on a topic that is somewhat controversial like my interest in atheism, science, medicine, secularism, politics, education, etc., I begin to fear that I do not have the expertise to truly address the issue. I am not a hard-hitting scientist (or a scientist at all for that matter), I am not in staunch opposition to anyone who has any kind of religious belief, although I have left my own religious beliefs behind me. I`m just an ordinary person, who having once found myself to be completely accepting and believing of something I later found to be demonstrably false, has made a decision to live my life in a way that honours the values I hold dear without religion and who trys to apply critical thinking, logic, and sound knowledge when faced with decisions that affect my family`s well-being and happiness.

When I came across Dale McGown and his book "Parenting Beyond Belief", I was introduced to a sample of people who seem to be just like me: individuals who think deeply about their place in the world, how to be happy, and how to make the world we share a better place through their own unique contributions - all without religion. It was sooooooooo refreshing. I never doubted that I couldn't be happy without religion - the last 6 years have been great so far! - or that I could raise ethical caring kids without religion, but it was really, really nice to read about parents who are already doing this. Of the author of The Humanist Approach to Happiness, Dale says:

Jen never tries to speak universally. She speaks for herself, clearly and informally, thinking out loud about decision making, simplicity, honesty, body ethics, sex, vibrators, relationships, addiction, self-image, pooping, death, and more. ... The net effect is a conversation about everything with an intelligent, unpretentious friend.

This is how I want to express myself on this blog and I hope I find both the courage and grace to do so without worrying too much about how others may receive my thoughts and opinions. I want to express my gratitude for those who are part of the ongoing conversation and online community who are setting the example for me - many of whom you can find on my blog list.

What skepticism means to me...

Image by Image Editor

Recently, a commenter said that:

"The very definition of being a skeptic is questioning the majority, not questioning the skeptic with so called skepticism."

This is not what I am when I say I am a skeptic. So perhaps I should clarify.

While questioning is an incredibly important part of skepticism, I don't think that it only applies to questioning the majority - why shouldn't we also question the fringe? A wise person once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The burden of proof or evidence lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. Who is to say what we can and can't be skeptical about? Why shouldn't I question "the skeptic"? I can question anything I want to - including skeptics who disagree with me.


Questioning is an important component of critical thinking but there are a couple of other key components to skepticism and critical thinking. For myself, the definition provided by the Skeptics Society works best and is what I mean when I say I am a skeptic:

Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
....


Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.

I am not saying that the mainstream shouldn't be questioned. There have been those in our history who have questioned the mainstream and by providing evidence and answering directly the criticism of naysayers have changed the way we view the world - therefore becoming mainstream.

One example would be Galileo who championed the theory of Copernicanism and through his observations of the solar systems came to promote the idea that the earth moves around the sun - not the other way around. Although he was forced by the Catholic Church to recant, other scientists continued to investigate the solar system and found that he was right - evidence supported his views and eventually it became mainstream to believe that the Sun is the center of our solar system and the planets, including earth, move around it. Science and skepticism is a method for learning about the world around us in a provisional, changing sense. I am open to new ideas - but before I provisionally accept them as true - I would like to see evidence.