What Must A Scientist Believe?
February 13, 2007 at 3:52 am | In beliefs, other faiths, science | 3 CommentsThe New York Times had a great article in today’s paper about Young Earth Creationists earning science degrees at regular universities. I’m always interested by mainstream media coverage of conservative Christianity because Orthodox Judaism shares many of the same beliefs, but is rarely covered in quite the same way.
The article dealt with whether doctorates should be awarded to students who do legitimate scientific work while harboring non-scientific beliefs, especially if those beliefs are specifically related to their fields of study. Can a university legitimately award a degree in, say, paleontology to a student who doesn’t actually believe that the fossils she studies are billions of years old? How can we accept the scholarship of a person who decries the same work from another scientist as false?
It’s interesting that the article doesn’t cover how the Christian scientists integrate their beliefs or resolve the dissonance between their two life choices. We get a quote from Dr. Marcus Ross, a creationist and geoscientist, who explains that he views the world through two separate paradigms, one religious, and the other scientific. I wish the author of the article,or perhaps Dr. Ross himself, had gone into more detail.
Orthodox Jews don’t always fall into the Biblical literalist camp. Enough opinions within the Mesorah allow for a more allegorical view of the seven days of creation, but even then, specifics of belief vary. Some attempt to reconcile the order of the days of creation with current evolutionary theory. Most don’t acknowledge that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are different and incompatible stories of Creation, regardless of their views on a young or old earth. Still others claim that though the earth is young, it was created to appear old, despite the issues raised by the duplicitous God that they must posit.
Perhaps none of these accommodations to scientific reality hold much water. I’m no expert, that’s for certain. Personally, I believe in an allegorical approach to Genesis rather than an historical approach, but as a person who venerates Midrash as an impressively encoded repository of knowledge, the title of allegory is high praise indeed, and the story of Genesis earns a reverence no less than the account of the parting of the sea, the giving of the Torah, or the conquest of the land of Israel. What seems clear is that Orthodox Jews who honor and respect science as a tool for discovering truth have found means by which to fervently believe in the early chapters of Genesis without rejecting science.
I think a difference exists between the Christian and Jewish approaches, though. Whereas Jews often seek to create a space for belief in science within their theology, Christian theology, or at least fundamental Christian theology, is well, fundamentalist. Jews are more likely to reinterpret their understanding of their own texts and traditions in light of scientific evidence rather than undermining science to buttress their faith-based claims. Christian Young Earth Creationist tend to take the opposite tack, perhaps because belief in literal Biblical inerrancy makes reinterpretation impossible.
Whatever the differences, the question regarding degree-granting remains. If a mathematician seeking a doctorate explained that because of his faith he did not believe that two and two made four (an idea akin to disbelieving evolution in many scientific circles) would he qualify for a doctorate? Perhaps the analogy overstates the case, but I can understand a PhD review board insisting that a candidate submit a doctoral thesis that she believes is true.
What are some of the ways in which Jews compartmentalize these beliefs? Any Young Earth Creationsts want to further explain what Dr. Ross meant when he spoke of two paradigms?
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.



“others claim that though the earth is young, it was created to appear old” – that’s brilliant! I’d take the theory even further, and claim that a few thousands years ago, the earth was created along with the whole space-time history of the universe, back to the big bang! How about that?
Back to the topic, does a mathematician need to believe that parallel lines don’t cross when he explores non-Euclidean geometry? Does a quantum physicist need to believe that the space-time is made of strings? I think that in science, beliefs are irrelevant, or, more precisely, that a good scientist needs to abstract away his beliefs while working on a theory.
As such, a creationist may very well be a good paleontologist as long as her personal beliefs do not affect her work.
Comment by luke — February 18, 2007 #
The biggest problem with believing in the a young earth that was created to appear to be old is believing in such a deceptive God. All those dinosaur bones, all that decayed carbon-14, just to test us. I guess it bothers some people more than others. It didnt’ bother me until a couple of years ago, and then it bothered me intensely, and still does.
As for the rest, I agree that a scientist doesn’t have to believe in the axioms (or axia, if you’re trying to be a jerk at a cocktail party) of his or her field to do good science. I just don’t know that a PhD is only awarded based on your ability to do good science. And even if you can abstract your beliefs while doing science, does a university have a legitimate interest in keeping PhDs from people who will use them to bolster and spread non-scientific claims?
Comment by rejewvenator — February 18, 2007 #
[...] 20, 2007 at 1:36 pm | In science, beliefs, other faiths, orthodox | Last week, I wrote about scientists who believe in the idea of a young Earth. This week, the New York Times is covering what in my mind is a similar topic – the beliefs that a [...]
Pingback by What May A Teacher Believe? « Rejewvenate! — February 20, 2007 #