Science and Faith: A Harmonious Perspective

Science reliably explains nature's "how," while faith addresses humanity's "why."

### Reconciling Science and Faith: Francis Collins' Perspective
* 🔬 Science rigorously answers questions about nature through hypothesis generation, data accumulation, and continuous evaluation.  **Science is reliable when conducted correctly**.
* 🤔 Faith addresses different questions, exploring philosophical realms like the universe's origins and God's existence—**questions science cannot answer**.
* ⚔️  Extremist views from both science and faith create unnecessary conflict, overshadowing the possibility of harmony between the two.
* 🤝 Most people accept science's reliability for understanding nature, but acknowledge that **it doesn't encompass everything**.  There's room for faith and philosophy.
* 🧬 Genetics provides irrefutable evidence supporting Darwin's theory of evolution, answering "how" life emerged.  However, it leaves the "why" unanswered.
* 🤔  Fundamental constants in the universe, like the gravitational constant, having precise values necessary for complexity, suggest a potential **"mind" involved in the universe's creation**.
* ⚖️ The existence of such a "mind" doesn't imply direct control over natural processes.  **Laws of nature could be the product of a mind**, yet nature operates independently.
* 🔬 Science can then investigate how these laws function and their consequences.

Science is about trying to get rigorous answers to questions about how nature works. And it's a very important process that's actually quite reliable if carried out correctly.

with the generation of hypotheses and testing of those by accumulation of data and then drawing conclusions that are continually revisited to be sure they are right.

So if you want to answer questions about how nature works, how biology works, for instance,

science is the way to get there. Scientists believe in that; they are very troubled by a suggestion that other kinds of approaches

can be taken to derive truth about nature. And some, I think, have seen faith as therefore a threat to the scientific method and therefore

it to be resisted. But faith, in its perspective, is really asking a different set of questions.

And that's why I don't think there needs to be a conflict here. The kinds of questions that faith can help one address are more in the philosophical

realm. Why are we all here? Why is there something instead of nothing? Is there a God?

Isn't it clear that those aren't scientific questions and that science doesn't have much to say about them?

But you either have to say, well, those are inappropriate questions and we can't discuss them, or you have to say, we need something besides science to pursue some of the things

that humans are curious about. For me, that makes perfect sense. But I think for many scientists, particularly for those who have seen the shrill pronouncements

from extreme views that threaten what they're doing scientifically and feel therefore they can't really include those thoughts into their own worldview, faith can be seen as

an enemy. And similarly, on the other side, some of my scientific colleagues who are of an atheist

persuasion are sometimes using science as a club over the head of believers, basically suggesting that anything that can't be reduced to a scientific question isn't important

and just represents superstition that should be gotten rid of. Part of the problem is, I think the extremists have occupied the stage.

Those voices are the ones we hear. I think most people are actually kind of comfortable with the idea that science is a reliable way

to learn about nature, but it’s not the whole story and there’s a place also for

religion, for faith, for theology, for philosophy. But that harmonious perspective does not get as much attention; nobody’s as interested

in harmony as they are in conflict, I’m afraid. My study of genetics certainly tells me, incontrovertibly,

that Darwin was right about the nature of

how living things have arrived on the scene, by descent from a common ancestor under the influence of natural selection over very long periods of time.

Darwin was amazingly insightful given how limited the molecular information he had was; essentially, it didn’t exist.

And now, with the digital code of DNA, we have the best possible proof of Darwin’s theory that he could have imagined.

So that certainly tells me something about the nature of living things. But it actually adds to my sense that this is an answer to a "how?" question and it leaves

the "why?" question still hanging in the air. Other aspects of our universe, I think, also for me, as for Einstein, raised questions about

the possibility of intelligence behind all of this. Why is it that, for instance, the constants

that determine the behavior of matter and

energy, like the gravitational constant, for instance, have precisely the value that they do in order for there to be any complexity at all in the universe.

That is fairly breathtaking in its improbability. And it does make you think that a mind might have been involved in setting the stage.

At the same time, that does not necessarily imply that that mind is controlling the specific manipulations of things that are going on in the natural world.

In fact, I would very much resist that idea. I think the laws of nature potentially could be the product of a mind.

I think that’s a defensible perspective. But once those laws are in place, then I think nature goes on and science has the chance

to be able to perceive how that works and what its consequences are.

Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God? | Francis Collins | Big Think

Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content -- with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields. We aim to help you explore the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century, so you can apply them to the questions and challenges in your own life. Other Frequent contributors include Michio Kaku & Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

Head to bigthink.com for a multitude of articles just as informative and satisfying as our videos. New articles posted daily on a range of intellectual topics. ​Join Big Think+ to gain access to an immense library of content. It features insight from many of the most celebrated and intelligent individuals in the world today.

   - Subscribe for daily videos.
   - Business inquiries and fan suggestions welcome.

Big Think

The inherent conflict between science and faith

Science seeks rigorous answers about nature's workings through hypothesis generation, data accumulation, and conclusion revision.

Some scientists view faith as a threat to the scientific method.

Faith addresses philosophical questions like existence and the nature of God, which are outside the scope of science.

The speaker suggests that science and faith can coexist, addressing different aspects of human curiosity.

Extremist views on both sides hinder a balanced perspective, with some using science to dismiss faith and vice versa.

Reconciling science and faith: A balanced perspective

Science is a reliable way to understand nature, but it doesn't encompass everything.

There's room for religion, faith, theology, and philosophy alongside science.

The speaker laments that conflict receives more attention than harmony between science and faith.

Scientific evidence and the question of 'why'

Genetics confirms Darwin's theory of evolution.

While science answers 'how' questions, it leaves the 'why' questions unanswered.

The fine-tuning of universal constants raises questions about the possibility of intelligence behind the universe.

The speaker believes the laws of nature might be the product of a mind, but that doesn't mean this mind controls everything.

Once laws are in place, science can study how they work and their consequences.