In this presentation Nabeel Qureshi speaks on the common misconception that God and Science, (and by implication- medicine) are diametrically opposed. However in his presentation he introduces some broader issues that shows just how important and essential this discussion is.
He takes very topical issues, the advance of extremist Islamic movements, as well as the recent outbreak of Ebola in Western Africa as examples of why the question of God's existence has far reaching implications. He also looks at the idea of how the so called antithesis between faith and religion, and evidence and science is often overstated and misconstrued. That science is very much concerned with evidence is well understood by the general public, what is not so commonly appreciated is that what undergirds much of science is not so much "proof" in the strictly deductive sense- but more so a web of evidence built upon inferences to the best explanation. By highlighting the inductive basis for much of science and at the same time offering evidential explanations for the existence of God in general, and the preponderance of good reason for faith in Christianity in particular, Nabeel drastically closes not only the perceived credibility gap between science and faith, but also much of the imagined antagonism.
In his video talk “God and Medicine” Dr. Nabeel Qureshi deals with two of the most contentious issues between those who espouse a supposed scientific worldview in opposition to a religious worldview.
First off the word faith is caricatured, or misrepresented to mean “blind faith”. Surely blind faith does exist in the sense that people of various persuasions simply take things on the authority of another, or trust in the authority of a text without any sense of requiring evidence for its veracity. But this has no place in a Christian orthodoxy. To quote part of a well loved scripture:
“Faith is... the evidence of things unseen…” Hebrews 11He also points out, as C.S. Lewis did before him, that most of what we know is simply taken on authority:
(For further discussion on the role of authority follow this link.)
“Don't be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you've been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I haven't seen it myself. I couldn't prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority -because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity
So even scientists exercise faith in the sense that much of what they take as true is based on the faith that the sources they use are reliable. Blind faith is when beliefs are formed on the basis of little or no evidence. Biblical faith is not blind faith, it is a reliance on the reliability of historical witnesses to various events that took place in real times and places that constitute the Gospel.The reality is then that Biblical faith too, is based on reliable authority.
So the second part of the tendentious issue that the scientifically literate cognoscenti would seek to impose on those of faith is also based around the idea of proof. In the public mind scientific conclusions are invariably associated with the idea of “proof” in the sense that it is based on strictly deductive reasoning. This is definitely not so. By giving a brief definition of the distinction between the methods of deduction and induction, Nabeel knocks scientism (note I don't disparage science!) off its pedestal, and conversely elevates theology with the respect it should be accorded, because they are essentially both engaged in the search for truth.
Nabeel explains the often neglected reality that far from the commonly assumed superiority of science in contradistinction to faith, even scientifically literate people fail to appreciate that the scientific method- science itself- relies on inductive reasoning. (For a more detailed look at this issue go to The Dirty Little Secret of Scientism)
Nabeel Qureshi:
‘To quote Samir Okasha lecturer of philosophy at the University of York in England, he says “The word “proof” should strictly only be used when we’re dealing with deductive inferences, in this strict sense of the word, scientific hypotheses can rarely- if ever- be proven true by the data.’ To restate: ‘Scientific hypotheses can rarely- if ever- be proven true by the data.’ because they’re inductive inferences”So the time proven method of science is almost invariably involved in inferences to the best explanation. In short its authority is no more authoritative than a well researched, accurate history book. Now to those who idolize science and would scoff at that suggestion- just think about it. The method of science is all about the ability to repeat experiments on the assumption of the uniformity of nature. But the uniformity of nature is an inferential and inductive argument as Hume points out and Nabeel rightly quotes.
It is in fact an argument from the past- an argument from history.
