Would any scientific discovery make you lose your faith?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

As I said above the biggest threats to my beliefs come not from science but from religion. But to substantiate this as well as examining how something could be a threat, we just need to examine my list of reasons for believing. Though not all of these reasons are equal, so I will follow this list by giving them a percentage importance.

1. As a physicist I have to ask myself as other physicists have asked themselves whether life as we experience really can be summed up in the mathematical equations of physics. My necessarily subjective conclusion, the same as many others, is that the very idea is absurd. Science puts our experience through the filter of mathematical glasses and to be sure this methodology has proven marvelously successful at not only explaining many things but discovering new things about the world that we never expected. But this is just looking at life in one particular way and I think it is quite foolish to confuse this way of looking at things with the reality itself.

2. It was through existentialism that I made a connection that first gave some meaning to the word “God” for me (I was not raised in a religion unless it is the “religions” of liberalism and psychology). I came to the conclusion that the most fundamental existentialist faith was the faith that life was worth living. I also concluded that for theists their faith in God played the same role for them in their lives, suggesting that the two kinds of faith were really the same thing in different words. That equivalence basically became my working definition for “God”, and from there it was a matter of judging what understanding of God best served that purpose.

3. Physicists experience shock and cognitive dissonance when they first understand what quantum physics is saying for it seems to contradict the logical premises of physics and scientific inquiry itself. But there is one thing that makes sense of it to me at least. If the universe was the creation of a deity who wanted keep his fingers in events then these facts of quantum physics would provide a back door in the laws of nature through which He could do so without disturbing the laws of nature. I am not saying that any such conclusion is necessitated by the scientific facts; only that on this subjective level where quantum physics created such cognitive dissonance for so many physicists, that this idea would make sense of it – to me

4. I have considerable sympathy with the sentiments of the eastern mystics that logic is stultifying trap for human thought and consciousness. The result is that even if I found no other reasons to believe in a God or a spiritual side to reality and human existence I would very much see the need to fabricate them for the sake of our own liberty of thought. We need a belief in something transcendent in order for us transcend the limitations of logic and mundane (or material) reasons to give our uniquely human ability for abstraction more substance and life.

5. I feel there are profound pragmatic reasons to reject the idea that reality is exclusively objective because it immediately takes any conviction about reality to a conclusion that the people who disagree with you are detached from reality and delusional or in some other way defective, I don’t believe that this is at all conducive to the values and ideals of a free society. The plain fact is that our direct contact with reality is wholly subjective and it is the objective which is the abstraction that has to be fabricated. Now I certainly think there is very good evidence that there is an objective aspect to reality but I see nothing to support taking this to the extreme of presuming that reality is exclusively objective.

Next let’s rate these reasons with regards to importance by giving a percentage of how much a failure to satisfy this reason would undermine my belief.

1. 90%
2. 95%
3. 65%
4. 50%
5. 80%

So let’s take these one by one:

1. So if religion decides that the observable physical universe is all there is then I wouldn’t see much point to it. This might seem unlikely except someone on the forum recently suggested this very thing, though I am not entirely sure that this was his intention rather than my misunderstanding.
2. I am reminded of a book series, “Repairman Jack” by F. Paul Wilson, which has a rather interesting theology in it. The earth is involved in a fight over territory and the current owner (which it calls the ally) doesn’t care anything about us really except how we might be useful in keeping control of this portion of the universe. I cannot say that such a being would inspire much regard on my part, which is not to say that he wouldn’t have my support as the lesser of two evils. So if a religion pushes a God which isn’t good and thus does not provide us with a faith that existence is even worthwhile, then I would certainly prefer even atheism over a religion like that.
3. This is the only one where scientific discovery is even involved. Without quantum physics, it is a bit difficult for me to see the relevance of God and religion to the living of our lives or even the meaningfulness of our lives altogether, frankly. Religion could also contradict this in a number of ways such as seeing the future as already written or in a milder way by insisting on interactions with the supernatural beyond what quantum physics would allow.
4. This is very similar to number one. The limitations of logic are hard to ignore, so it seems that the only way of conceiving an alternative has to do with the mundane reasons which are defined by the physical necessities. It is conceivable that a religion might suggest something beyond the observable universe but still doesn’t see anything which give us any more than the mundane requirements of physical life and in that case I wouldn’t see much more value in this religion than in the case of number 1.
5. A religion which cannot acknowledge or encompass the diversity of religious beliefs in the world and thus has to look at everyone else as deluded, would tend to look pretty far fetched to me.

Fortunately, unlike science, diversity look like an inherent feature of religion. So in reality, these possibilities for religion just become the criterion by which I would reject them and the beliefs that don’t fit the reasons why I believe or see any value in religion at all.