... aren’t scientific conclusions supposed to be held tentatively, in contrast to the firmness with which articles of religious faith are to be held – even in the face of countervailing evidence if need be? Yes, there’s some genuine difference there (though the tentativeness with which scientists hold their conclusions is somewhat exaggerated by people – scientists include – who talk about science). Think, by analogy, of your faith in a friend who’s been accused of murder. You’d be a funny sort of friend if you took too “scientific” an attitude toward your friend’s guilt – if, for example, you said “I regard the probability of your innocence as 87%,” or “The conjecture of your innocence has not yet been falsified.” Perhaps religious faith is more like loyalty to a friend than it is like a scientific conclusion.
I think it interesting how faith and belief changed meanings. Belief originally meant trust in God, and faith meant loyalty grounded in a promise or an obligation. Faith came to mean loyalty to a set of doctrines (now thought of as beliefs). Too bad, because it is in the codification of faith - reducing it to a set of doctrines - that trouble starts and we move away from a way of life and being to a kind of campaign platform and the accompanying sloganeering.
No comments:
Post a Comment