Faith and Dogma in Science and Religion

A couple of weeks ago I attended the annual Grand Dialogue Conference in Grand Rapids, MI. The speaker was Allan Wallace and his topic was "Experience, Reason, and Faith in Science and Religion: A Buddhist Perspective". Today I want to bring just a few of his ideas to you. His entire talk will be available soon at the Grand Dialogue website. His PowerPoint presentation is available now.

Wallace began by talking about the role of faith in both science and religion. It’s not common for us to think of science as a “faith based” enterprise, but if you ask working scientists they will tell you this is true. Wallace is in the presentation using a particular definition of faith - by "faith" he means "trust".

Science is based on faith in the discoveries of others. Scientists trust the results of others. No scientist redoes every experiment to prove its correctness for themselves. Scientists simply must trust each other. Scientists also have faith in the reliability of the equipment and methods they use. Galileo may have made his own telescope but today, few scientists make their own equipment. They must have trust in the people who make the instruments and they must trust those who maintain and repair them. Scientists must also rely on the public's faith in them and their work. They must have faith that others have faith in them. As Wallace pointed out, doing science is very expensive and science will not be funded it people don't have faith in the scientists and their results.

Faith plays a remarkably similar role in religion. Religions have faith in the revelations of "saints and sages". Religion has faith in the practices and teachings of the tradition. Finally Wallace says out that religion has "faith that the insights and realizations of past adepts can be replecated in the present." Now for people of faith, this discussion of faith is incomplete, but isn't it interesting the ways science and religion are both deeply dependent on the trustworthiness of others?

Wallace also talked about dogma. His definition of dogma is:

"A coherent universally applied worldview consisting of a collection of beliefs
and attitudes that call for a person's intellectual and emotional allegiance. A
dogma, therefore, has a power over individuals and communities that is far
greater that the power of mere facts and fact- related theories. Indeed, a dogma
may prevail despite the most obvious contray evidence, and commitment to a dogma
may grow all the more zealous when obstacles are met. Thus, dogmatists often
appear to be incapable of learning from any kind of experience that is not
authorized by the dictates of their creed."

Based on this definition, he then discussed dogmatism in religion and science. Religious dogmatism holds that the source of its beliefs is infallible and therefore its beliefs are true. Because its beliefs are true, its religions practices are the only valid practices.

Materialism on the other hand, claims that there is no other world beyond the physical, natural world and this natural, physical world is the sole source of knowledge. The only way to know about the world is by physical evidence.

Notice that Wallace has changed from talking about "science" to talking about "materialism" because certainly not all scientists are materialists. As a method, science excludes all supernatural or nonphysical entities because they can't be quantified or measured. Science as a method cannot have an opinion about the non physical. If the non physical exists, it exists outside the area of expertize of science. Also notice that he does not talk at all about God in his discussion. I suspect his goal was to point out particular areas of similarity and not give an exhaustive discussion of faith and dogma.

Wallace in his talk has quiet a bit more to say about knowledge and truth and his proposal for a way forward. You are invited to listen to his presentation to learn the rest. His presentation of faith and dogma reveal some interesting similarities between religion and materialism/scientism. So I would like to know, what do you think? Does this juxtaposition work? Is it valid? Is it helpful? Does discovering this common ground help us understand each other better?

I will have limited or no Internet access for the next several days. I have asked several questions and I am interested in your response but I won't be able to actively participate for about 10 day. until I return. So please discuss among yourselves and I will check in on April 5th.