Comment on 'Is Faith the Enemy of Science?'

Comment
on
“Is
Faith
the
Enemy
of
Science”
(to
appear
in
“Physics
in
Canada”)
 Lawrence
M.
Krauss,

 School
of
Earth
and
Space
Exploration
and
Physics
Department,

 Arizona
State
University,

 PO
Box
871404,
Tempe
AZ
85287‐1404
 
 
 
 Abstract
 
 This
comment
was
solicited
by
Physics
in
Canada
and
will
appear
alongside
the
 article
by
Richard
Mackenzie
in
the
next
issue.
 
 
 When
Richard
Mackenzie
contacted
me
some
time
ago
asking
for
the
slides
of
my
 presentation
at
the
CAP
annual
meeting,
I
had
no
idea
that
he
was
planning
such
a
 comprehensive,
and
cogent,
reflection
on
my
remarks.

After
reading
the
substance
 of
his
paper
[1],
I
find
myself
with
little
to
disagree
with.

The
chief
disagreement
we
 may
have,
if
indeed
we
have
one,
is
primarily
semantic.


It
is
based
on
the
definition
 of
the
three
key
words,
“faith”,
“ignorance”
and
“enemy”.

 Let
me
begin
by
explaining
what
I
meant
by
the
word
“enemy”.

I
take
an
operational
 view
of
this
word.

An
enemy
is
someone
to
either
be
avoided
or
vanquished.



I
 have
had
several
interesting
discussions
with
Richard
Dawkins,
some
of
them
quite
 public
and
available
on
YouTube,
on
this
issue.

I
have
asked
Richard
if
his
recent
 purpose
is
to
destroy
faith
or
teach
science,
and
he
has
indicated
that
destroying
 faith
at
the
moment
is
a
higher
priority.

I
accept
that
argument,
however
for
me
the
 latter
purpose,
teaching
science,
is
higher
priority.

(At
least
it
certainly
was
in
the
 context
of
a
lecture
on
the
teaching
of
science!)

And
since
I
therefore
view
that
 vanquishing
ignorance
is
a
higher
priority
for
a
teacher,
this
makes
ignorance
the
 enemy
 Now,
let’s
talk
about
ignorance
for
a
bit.

There
is
nothing
evil
about
ignorance.


I
 always
make
a
big
point
of
stating
that
when
I
describe
some
viewpoint
as
being
 based
on
ignorance
it
is
not
a
pejorative
statement,
but
meant
as
a
statement
of
fact.

 Thus,
for
example,
when
I
say
that
President
Bush’s
statement
about
evolution
vs
 intelligent
design
that
“Both
sides
should
be
taught,
so
students
know
what
the
 debate
is
all
about.”,

I
argue
that
is
a
statement
of
ignorance,
because
he
doesn’t
 know
there
is
no
scientific
debate
at
the
current
time.

It
is
not
a
stupid
statement.

If
 there
were
such
a
debate,
it
would
be
worth
teaching
students
about
it.

(I
should
 add
that
I
don’t
take
a
moralistic
view
of
the
term
“enemy”
either.


Enemies
need
 not
be
evil.

They
are
simply
enemies.)
 Finally,
the
most
emotionally
charged
word
of
all,
“faith”.

Richard
takes
this
to
mean
 an
unsubstantiated
belief,
which
is
not
a
bad
definition.

But
he
then
interprets
 religious
faith
as
being
the
same
as
faith
in
the
precepts
of
organized
religion.


If
this
 were
true,
I
agree
that
science
and
religious
faith
are
generally
incompatible.


There
 is
nothing
about
the
universe
that
science
has
unveiled
that
supports
the
notion
of
a
 God
interested
in
human
affairs,
and
many
of
the
stories
in
the
Bible,
for
example,
 are
not
empirically
true.


However,
having
a
kind
of
general
faith
in
order
and
 purpose
to
the
Universe
is
not
so
obviously
unscientific,
and
while
I
don’t
view
this
 faith
as
particularly
well
founded,
I
also
don’t
view
it
as
particularly
destructive.


 But,
just
for
the
purposes
of
discussion,
what
about
doctrinal
faith
by
religious
 scientists?

Even
if
it
is
inconsistent
with
science,
is
this
something
that
we
need
to
 vanquish?

I
doubt
we
can,
and
I
don’t
see
trying
to
do
so
as
the
highest
priority.


 First,
I
see
the
existence
of
conventionally
religious
scientists
as
merely
a
clear
 example
of
the
fact
that
humans
can
hold
fast
to
two
inconsistent
ideas
at
the
same
 time.

This
is
not
a
fact
worth
extolling,
but
it
is
simply
something
that
we
cannot
do
 much
about.

Humans
are
not
completely
logical
beings.

As
I
have
said
elsewhere,
 most
of
us
need
to
convince
ourselves
of
10
impossible
things
before
breakfast
in
 order
to
face
the
day.

Perhaps
the
world
would
be
a
better
place
if
human
nature
 was
completely
logical,
but
it
isn’t.

Should
we
therefore
place
our
highest
priority
 on
vanquishing
this
aspect
of
human
nature?
I
remain
unconvinced.



 Second,
as
long
as
someone’s
religious
faith
does
not
get
in
the
way
of
their
learning
 about
nature,
their
ability
to
assess
empirical
data,
and
to
predict
the
results
of
 future
experiments,
then
I
view
it
as
no
more
obstructionist
than
the
faith
they
may
 have
that
money
can’t
by
happiness,
or
that
marriage
produces
happiness
ever
after,
 or
that
the
Canadiens
will
win
the
Stanley
Cup.

Naïve,
perhaps.

Maybe
even
based
 on
ignorance.

But
not
necessarily
counterproductive.
 
 [1]
Richard
Mackenzie,
arxiv:0807.3670,
to
appear
Physics
in
Canada.

This content is AI-processed based on open access ArXiv data.