A popular trope these days depicts faith and
religion as opposed to science. The logic behind this is simple –
science is based on testability, reproducibility, and acting based on
evidence. Religion by it's nature is considered to require actions
based on faith, rather than evidence, and many religious claims are
inherently untestable, or at least such tests as may be argued to be
possible have factors that make such testing not reproducible; in
terms of philosophy or science, the claims are unfalsifiable.
Anti-religion advocates also often point to
religious persecution of scientists, as in the case of Galileo
Galilei, or of religious authorities resisting the adoption or
teaching of science, as in the case of evolution (for some time) or
the attempts to have schools teach intelligent design as science.
However, it is also true that many great scientists have been
religious, such as the (Quaker) astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington,
and the polymath Blaise Pascal. There are also cases of cultures and
times where religion, even relatively authoritarian religion, has
been a dominant feature of life, yet sciences have flourished –
most notably the Islamic Golden Age.
The debate about whether religion in general is
compatible with science will carry on in many places, especially
online forums and blogs, for a long time yet. In this post, I will be
addressing specifically the underlying assertion that faith stands
opposed to reason and evidence, and applying specifically my own
non-theist Quaker approach to faith to look at the implications.