There, did I get your attention? I
hope so, because I’m serious. I do trust science more than I trust religion,
even a religion I consider to be of God. Let me explain why.
First, let’s talk about science.
Is science ever wrong? Of course. Quite often. In fact, being wrong is part of
the whole purpose and project of science. But science, when performed properly
and according to long-established rules, is also self-correcting. Several years
ago, we at BYU Studies published an article by BYU geology professor Barry
Bickmore and BYU philosophy professor David Grandy titled “Science as
Storytelling.”1 They begin by pointing out that it is difficult to
define science, but they take a stab at it anyway: “Science is the modern art
of creating stories that explain observations of the natural world and that
could be useful for predicting, and possibly even controlling, nature.”2
Bickmore and Grandy then describe
several rules that endeavors must follow to be considered true science. “However,
it is important to realize that rules are chosen not because no others are
possible or because they are infallible guides to ‘truth’ but for convenience
in attempting to accomplish certain goals.”3
Their first rule is: “Scientific
stories are crafted to explain observations, but the observations that are used
as a basis for these stories must be reproducible.”4 Of course, some
types of phenomena occur very infrequently (perhaps a supernova or a very rare
disease), and some areas of science are simply theoretical and not observable
(string theory, for example), but most scientific experiments are constructed
to be reproducible. Repetition ensures that the results are consistent over
time and in numerous attempts.
Their second rules is: “Scientists
prefer stories that can predict things that were not included in the
observations used to create those explanations in the first place.”5
The stories scientists create attempt to explain as many observations as
possible. Based on their observations, scientists then come up with educated
guesses, called hypotheses, to explain what they think is true. “Once a story
has successfully predicted many new observations, scientists start suspecting
that it might be on the right track, and start calling it a ‘theory’ instead of
a hypothesis. . . . And even if we cannot really say that scientific stories
are the truth, some theories have successfully predicted so many things that we
think it is reasonable to believe they are at least on the right track.”6
This is true of the theory of evolution, for example.
Rule 3 is: “Scientific stories
should be subject to an infinitely repeating process of evaluation meant to
generate more and more useful stories.”7 This means that when science
gets things wrong, or not quite right, new stories can be created that more
accurately describe the world around us. There is no set process, but Bickmore
and Grandy give an outline of how science often happens:
1. Scientists make observations about
the natural world.
2. Scientists come up with
explanations that can explain these observations, or at least the ones that we
are most sure about, or seem most important.
3. Other consequences of these
explanations are evaluated, and scientists come up with ways to observe whether
some of those predictions are true.
4. Scientists then make these other
observations to test their predictions.
5. If the predictions work out, then
the original explanation may be kept. If the predictions do not work out, then
scientists do one of three things.
a. They throw out their initial
explanation and try to come up with another one that explains all (or at least
most) of their relevant observations.
b. They slightly modify their
original explanation to account for the new observations.
c. They ignore the new observations
that do not fit with their explanation, assuming there must be something wrong
with the observations. Then they either go on as if nothing had happened or try
to improve the observations.8
Rule 4 is: “Scientific explanations do not appeal to
the supernatural. Only naturalistic explanations are allowed.”9 They
give three reasons for this limitation. First, supernatural explanations don’t
generate precise new predictions. Second, it’s difficult to place limits on
which supernatural explanations are acceptable. Third, “just because they can
come up with a naturalistic explanation for something, it doesn’t follow that
the explanation is true.”10
Their fifth rule is: “Any scientific explanation
involving events in the past must square with the principle of ‘uniformitarianism’—the
assumption that past events can be explained in terms of the ‘natural laws’
that apply today.”11 In other words, natural laws don’t change willy-nilly
over time.
Rule 6 is: “Scientists assume that nature is simple
enough for human minds to understand.”12 If it is too complicated
for us to understand, then it makes little sense to pursue scientific
knowledge.
Their seventh and final rule is: “Scientific
explanations should not contradict other established scientific explanations,
unless absolutely necessary.”13 If the stories contradict each
other, we end up with a mass of confusion. “When we look closely,” Bickmore and
Grandy admit, “we find that scientific stories do not always fit perfectly
together. However, it is by trying to resolve contradictions between different
stories, and between scientific stories and observations, that scientists make
progress.”14 And this may be the most important point.
Our modern world is nothing if not a testament to the
fact that the scientific method works. The fact that I can type this blog post
on my computer, post it to the internet, and you can read it and make anonymous
comments about it is proof that science works. Without science, I would have to
write this out longhand, but, on the other hand, without science I wouldn’t
have anything to write about on this topic. The fact that I can drink clean
water, not have lead paint on my walls, take antibiotics to cure a nasty knee
infection instead of losing a leg, and watch my favorite sports team from the
comfort of my family room is evidence that science works. Ironically, the fact
that so many conservatives have become science doubters is also proof that
science works, because most of them became doubters through the wonders of
social media. Irony, I suppose is not their strong suit.
So, is science infallible? Of course not. It is the
very nature of science to be fallible. But by finding faults in our hypotheses
and theories, we improve our lives, and that is the whole point. And that is
why I trust science. At its very core, science is a humble endeavor, even if
not all scientists are.
Now let’s talk about religion. This won’t take long,
because I’ve already written a long post about how devilishly difficult it is
to decipher spiritual feelings. And that is the core of religion. It is based
on feelings, and feelings are not reproducible or falsifiable. Even if there
are divine appearances, such as Joseph Smith’s First Vision, or angelic
visitors, which Joseph also reported, most people either have to take his word
for what he claimed he saw, or they pray about it and get, yes, a feeling. But
even when the feeling is overwhelming, as I’ve related in my earlier post, it
is still subject to interpretation. As I stated before, in my own life I’ve
been wrong in my interpretation of spiritual feelings as often as I’ve been
right. And I don’t think I’m unique.
All we have to do is look at the history of Christianity
or, more narrowly, Mormonism, to find numerous examples of when people
following their feelings of certainty about religious matters got it all wrong.
There have been wars fought over feelings of certainty and plenty of
persecution over differences of religious opinion. In the LDS Church, we have
seen how spiritual certainty about Blacks and the priesthood turned out to be
completely wrong for over a hundred and twenty years. There was very little
self-correction in the processes of our religion.
Also, I am the descendant of two plural wives, one on each side of my genealogy, but today in the Church we certainly don’t believe, as our forebears did, that you can’t get into the celestial kingdom without practicing polygamy. In fact, a few years ago, a Pew Research Center survey of Mormons revealed, surprisingly, that more of us believe polygamy is wrong than feel that way about extramarital sex.15
My whole ongoing series of posts about questions
regarding the Book of Mormon is just more evidence that religion is often a can
of worms. So, do I trust religion? Somewhat, and sometimes.16 Do I
trust science? For the most part, yes, because its methods are sound and the
results have been overwhelmingly positive.
_______________
1. Barry R. Bickmore and David A. Grandy, “Science as
Storytelling,” BYU Studies Quarterly 53, no. 4 (2014): 37–60.
2. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 40.
3. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 41.
4. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 43.
5. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 44.
6. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 45.
7. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 46.
8. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 47.
9. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 49.
10. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 52.
11. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 53.
12. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 55.
13. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 57.
14. Bickmore and Grandy, “Storytelling,” 57.
15. “Politics, Society and Morality,” Pew Research Center, January
12, 2012, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/01/12/mormons-in-america-politics-society-and-morality/.
According to this survey, 86 percent of Mormons believe polygamy is morally
wrong. The percentages for sex between unmarried adults, abortion, and drinking
alcohol were 79, 74, and 54.
16. For more detail about my views on the imperfections in the
Church, see Roger Terry, “Why the True Church Cannot Be Perfect, Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought 46, no. 1 (2013): 94–107, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V46N01_427c.pdf.
