Faith Is Not Credulity
ronald...@gmail.com
Science and Christianity
Faith Is Not Credulity
A man of science is engaged professionally on a particular sort of
task. This is by such means as are available, particularly by
observation and experiment, to acquire a better understanding of the
world in which we find ourselves. Stated simply in this way, such a
profession would seem by no means incompatible with religious beliefs,
such as that this world is the outcome of the creative activity of a
personal God, or that the Creator has an affection for his creatures,
or, more specifically, that a historical person, Jesus of Nazareth,
exhibited and taught the perfect way of life, which God desires human
beings to endeavour to follow in a spirit of gratitude and confidence.
These are simple tenets, basic, so far as I can understand, to life as
a Christian. They are certainly not incompatible with a life devoted
to a better understanding of some aspect or other of the Creation of
which we form a part. In my own case, it is the study of the mode of
inheritance of the heritable characteristics of animals, plants and men
which takes up my professional time. In itself it is no more an
irreligious activity than fishing, or making tents.
But difficulties there certainly are. It is one of the evils into
which a nation can sometimes drift that, for about three generations in
this country, the people have been taught to assume that scientists are
the enemies of religion, and, naturally enough, that the faithful
should be enemies of science. Of course this rough statement of mine
will be objected to; it refers not to explicit teaching in the schools,
but to what is taken for granted. More highly educated people can see
through this assumption, or are polite enough to conceal it; but in my
own experience I do find the boys and girls from secondary schools
regularly taking for granted that, because I am a scientific professor,
therefore, I have no religion. I suggest to Sunday School teachers and
others that it is not to the interest of the children themselves, or of
their religion, that they should be misled into this kind of prejudice,
and that it is an orthodox element of the Party Line for Marxists.
That is one aspect of the problem. I think Christian children, at
least those who are brought up by Christians, should learn to
understand that young men and women from Christian homes enter into all
the professions, and that whether they become doctors, or lawyers, or
scientists, all ought to, and many do, remain faithful and loyal to the
Church into which they were baptised. Each of these professions,
indeed, subjects this loyalty to specific stresses. I do not believe
these stresses are more severe for men of science than for the other
professions. It is no paradox to suggest that knowledge can "grow from
more to more, yet more of reverence in us dwell"; but it is worth while
to recognise some of the factors at work. Here is one of them, which I
should like clergymen in particular to understand.
At morning prayer we start our worship with a General Confession, in
which we express an abject repudiation of our faults and unworthiness.
Nothing could be more sensible. If we are to do better, the first step
is surely to make ourselves acutely aware of what is to be remedied;
and about this we cannot be too candid and explicit. There is no
special difficulty for a man of science in this humiliating
self-examination. On the contrary, in a different field, it is just
what he is used to. Just as, in order to live better, it is necessary
to be clear about our moral faults, so, in order to know, or
understand, better, it is necessary to be clear about our ignorance.
This is the research scientist's first important step, his *pons
asinorum*, or bridge which the asses cannot cross. We must *not* fool
ourselves into thinking that we know that of which we have no real
evidence, and which, therefore, we do not know, but can at most accept,
recognizing that still we do not actually know it.
Now, among people who are young enough, to confess ignorance is just as
humiliating as to confess culpability, and most people while still
juvenile learn every sort of psychological device to hide from
themselves both their own culpability, and their own ignorance.
Humility in either respect is a great deal easier for the old than for
the young. My point, however, is merely that recognition of our won
ignorance is a primary qualification for the business of improving
natural knowledge, just as recognition of our sinfulness is the first
necessary step towards leading a better life.
So far I have pointed to no special stress in the religious life of a
man of science. But how does the matter look if this very awareness of
our own lack of knowledge is held up to our fellow-Christians as a
cardinal sin, under the name of scepticism, or unbelief? The custom of
making abstract dogmatic assertions is not, certainly, derived from the
teaching of Jesus, but has been a widespread weakness among religious
teachers in subsequent centuries. I do not think that the word for the
Christian virtue of faith should be prostituted to mean the credulous
acceptance of all such piously intended assertions. Much
self-deception in the young believer is needed to convince himself that
he knows that of which in reality he knows himself to be ignorant.
That surely is hypocrisy, against which we have been most conspicuously
warned. Christian children should rather be taught that faith does not
mean credulity; but is a quality, very like courage, which makes one
hold fast to that which is good, irrespective of all the
discouragement, slander, intimidation, etc., which Christians have
learnt to expect in their pilgrimage.
Finally, let me guard myself against a very simple and natural
misapprehension. People who speak publicly about religion are often
*assumed* to be advocating particular religious views, or doctrines.
I, at least, am not qualified to do anything of this kind; and such is
certainly not my intention in this talk. I should like merely to
redress a disturbed balance. Scientific workers who find difficulty in
accepting the traditional basis of religious life have become a
literary stereotype, very much as are artists who find difficulty in
the accepted moral conventions. Yet, just as there are artists who
prefer to live very decent and civilised lives, so there are scientists
who are not willing to be alienated from the traditional religion of
their families. I hope I have shown that there is nothing contrary to
reason in such a choice.
RONALD FISHER.
CreateThis
>Friend, 113: 995-996. (1955)
>
>Science and Christianity
>
>Faith Is Not Credulity
>
>A man of science is engaged professionally on a particular sort of
>task. This is by such means as are available, particularly by
>observation and experiment, to acquire a better understanding of the
>world in which we find ourselves. Stated simply in this way, such a
>profession would seem by no means incompatible with religious beliefs,
>such as that this world is the outcome of the creative activity of a
>personal God, or that the Creator has an affection for his creatures,
>or, more specifically, that a historical person, Jesus of Nazareth,
>exhibited and taught the perfect way of life, which God desires human
>beings to endeavour to follow in a spirit of gratitude and confidence.
>These are simple tenets, basic, so far as I can understand, to life as
>a Christian. They are certainly not incompatible with a life devoted
>to a better understanding of some aspect or other of the Creation of
>which we form a part.
I like your post, but have a quibble about this:
> In my own case, it is the study of the mode of
>inheritance of the heritable characteristics of animals, plants and men
Science doesn't distinquish between animals and men. That's a
religious thing.
CT
Perplexed in Peoria
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message news:3nbsm2dq6d3gld2r5...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Nov 2006 10:34:47 -0800, ronald...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Friend, 113: 995-996. (1955)
> >
> >Science and Christianity
> >
> >Faith Is Not Credulity
> >
> >A man of science is engaged professionally on a particular sort of
> >task. This is by such means as are available, particularly by
> >observation and experiment, to acquire a better understanding of the
> >world in which we find ourselves. Stated simply in this way, such a
> >profession would seem by no means incompatible with religious beliefs,
> >such as that this world is the outcome of the creative activity of a
> >personal God, or that the Creator has an affection for his creatures,
> >or, more specifically, that a historical person, Jesus of Nazareth,
> >exhibited and taught the perfect way of life, which God desires human
> >beings to endeavour to follow in a spirit of gratitude and confidence.
> >These are simple tenets, basic, so far as I can understand, to life as
> >a Christian. They are certainly not incompatible with a life devoted
> >to a better understanding of some aspect or other of the Creation of
> >which we form a part.
>
> I like your post, but have a quibble about this:
>
> > In my own case, it is the study of the mode of
> >inheritance of the heritable characteristics of animals, plants and men
>
> Science doesn't distinquish between animals and men. That's a
> religious thing.
>
Er... You may have been misled by the poster's nym.
The essay was taken from a radio address from 50 years ago. The author
was a giant of evolutionary theory, and of the discipline of Statistics.
Wiki RONALD FISHER to learn more.
[snip remainder]
Here is my favorite quote from Fisher:
Natural selection is a mechanism for generating an exceedingly
high degree of improbability.
Chew on that, Pitman et. al.
http://www.economics.soton.ac.uk/staff/aldrich/fisherguide/quotations.htm
prospero33
not from historical evidence but from writings made more than a
generation after his death. If you accept the historicity of Jesus
based on that writing, I don't see with what logic you can reject
anything else in the same writing.