Believing Scientists Respond: What Questions Are You Asked About Your Faith?

A third post in the series from Biologos:
___
Kristine Johnson, aerospace engineer, Honeywell

An idea that continues to surface in conversations is around the nature of explanations. Often people think that if there is a scientific explanation, no other explanation is necessary or even possible. If we understand the natural causes, they think the natural explanation precludes a supernatural explanation. I really love this discussion because on further discourse, people usually see it's a false dichotomy to have to pick only one kind of reason. It's easy to show that water boiling on the stove has a scientific explanation (heat transfer to the molecules) but also has a personal cause (I'm boiling the water to make pasta).
___
Joel Duff, professor of biology, University of Akron (member of BioLogos Voices)

There is no one-liner response to such inquiries.  Dialogue requires personal relationships in which both parties are able to listen. Effective dialogue with professional colleagues, graduate students and undergraduates begins by first living a life as consistent with my understanding of Scripture as possible.  Being consistent with one's words and actions are the foundation of establishing respect.  Being able to listen, talk about other people's concerns and interacting with their positions respectfully usually provides the opportunity to have a discussion with someone about why one's actions and words as a Christian may differ from those that don't have that Christian worldview.
___
Denis Alexander, Emeritus Director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St. Edmund’s College

I am sometimes asked, "What's the point in believing in God? Why not just believe in science and leave it at that?" In general, I point out that it's intellectually lazy to just accept the universe as a "brute fact" without also considering why it exists. And clearly if there is no God, and therefore no ultimate purpose or meaning to the universe either, then what's the point of doing science in any ultimate sense, because eventually it will all be swallowed up in the second law of thermodynamics anyway?
___
S. Joshua Swamidass, assistant professor of laboratory and genomic medicine, Washington University in St Louis (member of BioLogos Voices)

A common question I get is, "Why do you believe something without evidence?" I respond by clarifying that my "faith" is not evidence-free. It is more like trust. And this trust is connected to evidence.  First, there is the evidence for the Resurrection: (1) physical and historical evidence, (2) the testimony of people; and (3) my own experience with the Risen One. The faith I find is consistent with evidence and reason, but there is something more. I see something clearly that changes me, and makes sense of everything else.