Naturally, in a world where the majority of people still think faith is a good thing, I knew not everyone would appreciate my rendition of Tim Minchin's quote on science versus faith. Here's the quote:
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
I received a response from someone named "LHGR" who was less than pleased with this quote by Minchin. Here are LHGR's comments, followed by my rebuttal:
LHGR:
Minchin's take on Science vs. Faith is hardly reflective of critical thinking. In fact it is quite embarassing.
First of all he describes "science" as having viewpoints and the capacity to adjust those viewpoints. He then describes "faith" as a behavior. Taking his statements as written, it is an apples to oranges comparison (a living thing compared to a behavior) and therefore not a valid argument. Of course we know science is a thing, a body of knowledge and can't have views or adjust those views. Obviously, I know that Minchin's intent is to attempt to make a comparison between science and faith so I will try to say it in a way that can be considered.
Science is the product of scientists adjusting their views based on what they observe. Faith is the product of believers denying their observations so their beliefs can be preserved.
Now that science and faith are in the same form, more or less, I have another problem. Minchen's definition of science is arguably a widely accepted definition. His definition of faith is his own and is constructed to portray it in the most negative light possible. It is not an accepted definition. That makes it a strawman argument. I realize one might say he is part comedian and fires for effect. However, he clearly fancies himself as more as do his followers. If he wants to tackle big topics, it's fair to expect at least basic logic.
Hardly reflective of critical thinking and certainly not compelling. I feel safe in saying that critical thinkers on both sides of the issue would not be impressed-Hitchens, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, etc.
Me:
You don't think Hitchens would be impressed? I take it you haven't read much of Christopher Hitchens' work. It was Hitchens who said:
Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.
Hitchens and Minchin are in agreement. C.S. Lewis might have had a word to say to the contrary, but... well duh. It's C.S. Lewis: he thought the Trilemma was a good idea.
You seem to be downplaying Minchin's views because he is "part comedian." I'm reminded of the words of Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who remarked: "A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes." Indeed, much of the best comedy has a strong foundation in the truth. The fact that Minchin is a comedian in no way invalidates what he says; if anything, we might want to pay even closer attention.
That said, I find your initial criticism to be pedantic and uncouth. Of course everyone knows science is a thing that doesn't, as you wrote, "have views or adjust those views." If you were to sit down with Tim Minchin for a chat you'd find he'd agree with you as well. You are criticizing a line from a nine minute beat poem, not a dissertation or formal essay. Minchin was making accomodations for both rhyme and meter, so he took a short cut grammatically. When he says "science adjusts its views..." he's saying something along the lines of, "within the discipline of science, views are adjusted, changed and/or discarded based on the evidence (i.e., what's observed)."
Yes, I took the time to type all that out, even though one could argue that all I should have said in response was: you should know better.
You suggested that Minchin's definition of science is "arguably a widely accepted definition." Let me help you understand: that is the definition of science. Naturally, one could write an essay on the definition of science, but Minchin's definition works well enough. If you need a longer definition, well, here I go quoting myself:
The history of science is one of ever-increasing understanding: old ideas are replaced by better ideas, which are eventually replaced by even better ideas. Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation. Science will never be "finished." This pilgrimage has no Mecca, no final destination.
Science is the embodiment of humanity's endeavor to establish truth, to question everything, and to contribute to mankind an explanation and understanding of reality arrived at through constant, unbiased, open and transparent experimentation and discovery in which falsifiability and replicability are highly valued and relied upon. Science is the child of western philosophy, and as such the child bears resemblance to the parent insofar as both thrive on a sense of wonder.
My tl;dr answer to you is: Tim Minchin knows what science is. Oh, and let me fix your attempted "fix" of Minchin's quote:
Science isthe product ofscientists adjusting their views based on what they observe. Faith isthe product ofbelievers denying their observations so their beliefs can be preserved.
That's more accurate.
Concerning Minchin's definition of "faith," he's basing it on a rational generalization. Perhaps you have a "faith" that differs from Minchin's definition. If so, I'd love to know what it is. But Minchin's definition is wildly accurate vis-à-vis religion. This is the faith of William Lane Craig. This is the faith that is lauded in the Bible college I attended. Time after time a believer will congratulate himself for holding on to his faith "in spite of logic." This faith is why the disciple Thomas - commonly referred to as "Doubting Thomas" - is looked at as naughty for being a doubter. Faith is heralded as a virtue while doubt is condemned as a vice. You claim Minchin is attacking a straw man. The evidence says you are incorrect.
If you want a more complete definition of "faith," here you go: Faith is the denial/ignoring/misinterpreting/downplaying of evidence for the purpose of sustaining belief and maintaining both an orthodoxy and orthopraxy which conforms to the standards of the given belief system.
If you find that the definition of faith Minchin offers (and that I expanded upon) puts faith in a bad light, you may want to reconsider the value of possessing it.
