The scientific worldview and faith: Part two of a series.

(Note:  I added formatting to this post a few hours after publishing it.)

In a post from a few days ago, I wrote:

I've been asked privately to write publicly about my perspective as a "person with a strong scientific education and worldview... coming to know or believe in God's reality and divinity." With an eye toward the "lack of scientific evidence for the divine;" an eye toward the "lack of a need" to rely on supernatural or divine explanations when constructing an appreciative theory of the world.

Here is a more direct quote from the emailed request:

"I was wondering if you could share with me your reasoning and experience with coming to know or believe on God's reality and divinity. ...I'd really appreciate hearing your perspective, especially given your coming to church practice as an adult." 

I find myself wanting to phrase my response as if the sender had asked me certain specific questions, even though he actually didn't. I suppose that counts as my "perspective," the questions that form the framework of my response. So, for the sake of clarity, here are the questions that my interlocutor did not ask me, but which it seems I am trying to answer:

1. How do I, personally, deal with the question of lack of scientific evidence for the divine?
2. How is it that I, a "scientifically minded person" [his words, not mine, mind you], came to knowledge and/or belief in the divine?  
3. What special experience or insight can I offer because I was (just) past childhood when I came to Church practice?

In my first post, linked above, I treated the first question. I explained that I am confident that, if God exists, we would find no scientific evidence for him; and that, if God does not exist, we would equally find no scientific evidence for him; therefore the lack of scientific evidence says nothing whatsoever about God's existence. I also defined "scientific" evidence for the purpose of my argument, and alluded to the existence of evidence other than what I call scientific evidence.  

Now I want to turn to the second question. But first I find myself wondering what is meant by a scientifically minded person, and why it should be surprising that such a person expresses a belief in the supernatural.

+ + +

What is a "scientifically-minded person" anyway? Anyone who might be expected to be skeptical? How is that different from the average person? What is this class of persons who are "scientifically minded?" Anyone who does not seem like the sort of person who would firmly embrace the existence of God, or who would have confidence in the teaching of the Church?  

Maybe not just anyone. Who are the people whose faith surprises us? People who have it all, materially speaking, surprise us when it turns out they have a real and lively faith too, because supposedly it is hard to be rich and faithful -- the Bible even says so -- yet some apparently are given the grace to make it work; a few of our saints were even princes and princesses, queens and kings. People who have nothing and are yet faithful sometimes surprise us too, because while on one hand it is understandable that a suffering man would seek comfort in the promise of a better life after death, it is undeniable that for many others, apparently undeserved suffering calls the goodness of God into question.  

Why are people with scientific or engineering training expected, these days, to deny or to doubt the existence of God? Maybe it is merely an accurate assessment of our chances; scientists do appear  to be less likely to believe in God at all, and less likely to hold strong religious beliefs, than the general population.

But that leads us to ask why scientists are less religious than the general population.  

Maybe it is an unsurprising side effect of the training. Correct application of the scientific method requires a constant positive skepticism: it is not proper to the method to accept a proposition merely on the authority of the one proposing it, nor is it proper to the method to accept a proposition because it seems logical or, to put it bluntly, pleasant or elegant. Though elegance can and does guide us in the selection of which hypotheses to test, testing is still required. Perhaps this habit of skepticism toward propositions which are in the domain of science can bleed outward into propositions which are not in the domain of science, so that the scientifically trained person expects to reject all propositions which have not been tested.

It is probably worth noting, though, that the proportion of believers among those who have had technical educations varies widely by discipline (see the above link for some of this information). Medical doctors, for example, are very likely to believe in God, possibly even more likely than the general population. Physicists are among the most likely to be atheists. The rest of us, including all the engineers, are somewhere in the middle.  

It is possible that the different educations we receive condition us in different ways, but I tend to think that the causality runs the other way. I suspect that religiosity drives the selection of the educational path.

+ + +

In any case, though, I think it is wrong to assume that what's special about a scientist, or a scientifically-minded person, is that he or she "comes to belief or knowledge of the divine" in a different way from most other believers.  

Here in America, most people privileged enough to receive an education do not have to "come" to belief and knowledge of the divine; the knowledge tends to come to us. It is around us for the taking. A large number of us hear about God from our own families, and even those who don't are steeped in a culture which, for all its competing attractions, constantly makes reference to "God" and is full of churches and of believers and libraries and universities and other resources. Anyone who is sufficiently curious and has enough access to those resources ought to find plenty of information about what believers believe and why they say they believe it. Scientists "come to belief and knowledge of God" in the same ways as the rest of the population.

What may be particular about scientists or scientifically-minded persons is the specific objection they have to accepting or to investigating the ever-present proposition, "God exists." 

  In other words, when a scientifically minded person changes from belief to disbelief, it is more a matter of removing something from him -- his objections to faith -- than it is a matter of adding something to him -- faith itself. Although once the objections are removed then he may find that he still has a lot to learn.

Next post: Three independent ways by which such objections are, it seems, either held at bay or removed. The post will not, I think, contain any actual attempts to argue for the existence of God, so all you scientifically-minded people can safely continue reading.