Natalie Angier is the Pulitzer-Prize-winning science writer for the New York Times, author of Woman: An Intimate Geography and most recently The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science. In a new piece at Edge, she points a finger at the hypocrisy of many scientists who wail and gnash their teeth at superstitious craziness like creationism or astrology, but invent elaborate rationalizations about non-overlapping magisteria when it comes to things like the virgin birth or life after death. A somewhat lengthy excerpt, as I can’t help myself:
In the course of reporting a book on the scientific canon and pestering hundreds of researchers at the nation’s great universities about what they see as the essential vitamins and minerals of literacy in their particular disciplines, I have been hammered into a kind of twinkle-eyed cartoon coma by one recurring message. Whether they are biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, or engineers, virtually all my sources topped their list of what they wish people understood about science with a plug for Darwin’s dandy idea. Would you please tell the public, they implored, that evolution is for real? Would you please explain that the evidence for it is overwhelming and that an appreciation of evolution serves as the bedrock of our understanding of all life on this planet? …
Scientists think this is terrible—the public’s bizarre underappreciation of one of science’s great and unshakable discoveries, how we and all we see came to be—and they’re right. Yet I can’t help feeling tetchy about the limits most of them put on their complaints. You see, they want to augment this particular figure—the number of people who believe in evolution—without bothering to confront a few other salient statistics that pollsters have revealed about America’s religious cosmogony. Few scientists, for example, worry about the 77 percent of Americans who insist that Jesus was born to a virgin, an act of parthenogenesis that defies everything we know about mammalian genetics and reproduction. Nor do the researchers wring their hands over the 80 percent who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the laws of thermodynamics be damned. …
So, on the issue of mainstream monotheistic religions and the irrationality behind many of religion’s core tenets, scientists often set aside their skewers, their snark, and their impatient demand for proof, and instead don the calming cardigan of a a kiddie-show host on public television. They reassure the public that religion and science are not at odds with one another, but rather that they represent separate “magisteria,” in the words of the formerly alive and even more formerly scrappy Stephen Jay Gould. Nobody is going to ask people to give up their faith, their belief in an everlasting soul accompanied by an immortal memory of every soccer game their kids won, every moment they spent playing fetch with the dog. Nobody is going to mock you for your religious beliefs. Well, we might if you base your life decisions on the advice of a Ouija board; but if you want to believe that someday you’ll be seated at a celestial banquet with your long-dead father to your right and Jane Austen to your left-and that she’ll want to talk to you for another hundred million years or more—that’s your private reliquary, and we’re not here to jimmy the lock.
Consider the very different treatments accorded two questions presented to Cornell University’s “Ask an Astronomer” Web site. To the query, “Do most astronomers believe in God, based on the available evidence?” the astronomer Dave Rothstein replies that, in his opinion, “modern science leaves plenty of room for the existence of God . . . places where people who do believe in God can fit their beliefs in the scientific framework without creating any contradictions.” He cites the Big Bang as offering solace to those who want to believe in a Genesis equivalent and the probabilistic realms of quantum mechanics as raising the possibility of “God intervening every time a measurement occurs” [arrrgh! — ed.] before concluding that, ultimately, science can never prove or disprove the existence of a god, and religious belief doesn’t—and shouldn’t—”have anything to do with scientific reasoning.”
How much less velveteen is the response to the reader asking whether astronomers believe in astrology. “No, astronomers do not believe in astrology,” snarls Dave Kornreich. “It is considered to be a ludicrous scam. There is no evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.” Dr. Kornreich ends his dismissal with the assertion that in science “one does not need a reason not to believe in something.” Skepticism is “the default position” and “one requires proof if one is to be convinced of something’s existence.”
Read the whole thing. Scientists who do try to point out that walking on water isn’t consistent with the laws of physics, and that there’s no reason to believe in an afterlife, etc., are often told that this is a bad strategic move — we’ll never win over the average person on the street to the cause of science and rationality if we tell them that it conflicts with their religion. Which is a legitimate way to think, if you’re a politician or a marketing firm. But as scientists, our first duty should be to tell the truth. The laws of physics and biology tell us something about how the world works, and there is no room in there for raising the dead and turning water into wine. In the long run, being honest with ourselves and with the public is always the best strategy.
Update: In the Science Times, George Johnson reports on a conference in which scientists debated how to interact with religion. This was a non-Templeton affair, and most of the participants seemed to be somewhat anti-religion. Videos of the talks should soon be available at The Science Network.
Sean,
I have to disagree with you here – it’s not possible to use science to prove that god doesn’t exist, at least not the all-powerful, all-knowing god type. The problem is that this god is attributed such phenomenal powers, that any test you wish to perform to try to disprove his existence, the believer can answer that the test came back negative because god wished it to be so.
Some examples:
A belief that god created the world 6000 years ago – can’t be disproven by pointing out that cosmology and geology show that the universe, the solar system, and the Earth are much older than this, because the believer can claim that it is a false history planted by god to test your belief in his words (and punish you later if you choose not to believe). This god is infallible, so if he chooses to create the false history without any defects that could let you detect it as false, he can do so.
A belief that prayers are answered – contrary to what Rob claimed above, the effectiveness of third person prayers has not been disproven, only the effectiveness of third person prayers when you attempt to measure their effectiveness. This god (who obviously doesn’t want anyone to know whether he exists but make it a matter of believing) is all-knowing in addition to all powerfull, so can choose to not respond to any prayers that are being made with the intention to test if they they work (and if your beliefs include pre-destiny, then this god will always know if anyone at any time in the future will be attempting to prove if that prayer worked).
In a similar way, any scientific test to try to prove or disprove the existence of this god can be made by god to show that he doesn’t exist if he doesn’t want proof of his existence known.
You can show that the historical stories are probably not real (how did Noah fit 2 of every type of animal in a small boat, and then have genetic drift speed up so modern genetics can’t detect that all animals of a given species have the same ancestor pair in common?), barring the miracle exception discussed above. You can disprove specific prophecies that are claimed to be given by god. You just can’t disprove that a god who does not wish to be found by scientific tests does exists (particularly the god as the ultimate supercomputer and we’re just the ultra-large N-body simulation with Planck time being the time steps used concept that you obviously dislike).
I am one of the Cornell “Ask an Astronomer” writers referred to in Natalie Angier’s article. She first published the piece a couple years ago, and my reaction to it has gradually changed from bemusement to anger to outrage, the more times I read it…
One problem I have with her article is that for someone who claims to be a proponent of science, she sure doesn’t seem to be a big fan of the scientific process. She makes some pretty extraordinary claims in this article; she claims that scientists are inappropriately friendly to religion, and she claims that they do this because they’re afraid of losing government grants. Where are the facts to back this up? She presents no evidence for the second claim, and the primary (and practically only) piece of “evidence” she presents for her first claim is the comparison between two different answers on the Ask an Astronomer website, one in response to a question about astrology and the other in response to a question about belief in God (you can read the original answers here and here).
Besides the obvious problem of using a sample size of two (didn’t it occur to her that maybe Dave Kornreich and I just happen to have different writing styles?), she totally fails to consider any other possible explanations for why our answers may have been written in such different ways. In my opinion, there’s a big reason. “Belief in God” covers a very wide spectrum of things… whereas belief in astrology does not. There are some religious beliefs that directly contradict science, and some that don’t; TimG’s post above is a really good summary of this spectrum. But if we were to place astrology on that spectrum, it’s pretty clear where it would fall… and trust me, if someone had asked me for my scientific opinion about, say, preachers who claim to heal people by pressing on their foreheads, I wouldn’t have been so nice in my response. As it was, I was asked a general question about belief in God and chose to respond to it in a general way.
So I’m sitting here pretty much dumbfounded about what people see in her article. It’s one thing to disagree with religious ideas (I assume this is the origin of the rather snarky “arrrgh!” inserted by the editor, in response to what I wrote about God and quantum mechanics). But it’s another thing to claim that you are disagreeing on scientific grounds when you aren’t. And that seems to be what she is calling for.. a general attack by scientists on “religion.” I think this is foolish. If you take the monolithic view of religion that she seems to be taking, rather than respecting its complexity, you are quite simply asking to be laughed at by religious people all over the world. Consider another question that I once received on the Ask an Astronomer site:
“I recently purchased a text on stellar structure. Why is the structure of a star complex? Why does it involve such complicated equations? I always thought stars were just simply balls of gas.”
Did this person’s view of science strike you as oversimplified? Well, the same sort of opinion about religion is underlying Natalie Angier’s article.
David, thanks for commenting. I don’t agree with the afraid-of-losing-grants business either; it’s not at all that simple (or sinister). On the other hand, the sample size of two is not such a big deal; it’s not supposed to be a survey, just an illustrative anecdote. Many scientists certainly do treat religion with more respect than they treat astrology. I don’t think that this characterization is in dispute, only whether or not such a distinction is appropriate.
The snarky “arrrgh” was mine, and I’ll stand by it. Pretending that there is room for God in the unpredictable collapse of the wavefunction is neither good science nor good theology.
Belizean,
What’s “good” is experienced subjectively, and so is difficult (if not impossible) to codify rationally. However, your post about sociopaths gives a clue where to begin: devise a system where you can’t gain benefit by injuring or defrauding others, as the antisocial are inclined to do.
Intuitively, this means a significantly free and sure market economy with a highly literate populace; not surprisingly, societies that exhibit these traits top the rankings by any reasonable measure.
Where to go from there, i.e. to answer the philosophical question of what is optimal for human life, is a small part of the equation IMHO. Creative people will find their own ways and serve as models for others.
A sociopath has no feelings of empathy at all, and only derives pleasure from harming others. Don’t you people watch Dexter?
Being highly literate, the threat of jail, the threat of hell, none of those things has an effect on the likes of, oh, say, John Wayne Gacy. Such a mensch.
Neither does the threat of jail or hell prevent our seriously overcrowded prisons. High education didn’t prevent Enron, or the unibomber.
There seems to be a conflation between a belief in a god and a belief in the mythology/system of rules of a god.
Religion deals with crime and punishment, as well as salvation. A belief in god absent those things is often about comfort.
I keep reading arguments about the foolishness of rules/mythology/crime, but nothing that offers any sort of empathy regarding the sense of comfort that a belief in god provides. There’s nothing wrong with believing that there is some sort of immortality, that people we love are safe and warm and waiting for us. The problem tends to lie in the bullshit rules people prescribe to receive that eternal comfort.
God, while weilded as a tool of punishment or reward, is mostly just another word for hope.
I don’t find that foolish or ignorant.
Sean,
You really need to do an “OJ” blog. An “If God did it, this is how he did it” blog. Of course, you will then need to host a special on FOX where you then describe it to the world. (Try not to have in canceled last minute please) I would defiantly print that one out, I’m sure you could make that one a really interesting read. 🙂
Sean said,
No. Astrology, creationism and psychic communication with the dead are not harmless, and I am surprised that you would try to frame them as such. The comfort and support that comes from religion, on the other hand, is, as others have already pointed out, a positive aspect in many people’s lives. I don’t understand why someone would want to take that away from another.
sean said:
Let me explain to you the differenct between astrology and psychic communication vs. Christianity and Islam.
Have you ever been on a bus and seen a young women wearing a bomb vest scream out “long live Capricorn”. Have you ever driven through the american heartland on a Sunday and seen a packed house at the “First Assembly of Ouiji-Boardism Church”…..That’s the difference.
I’ll explain my position, without analogy, as concisely as possible:
The world is what it is. It is not what we want it to be. It is not its future potential. It is not what TV tells us it is. If you have somehow “logiced” your way to the conclusion that it is a good idea to pick a fight with 95% of the worlds population, when there is really no potential upside, but there is a tremendous downside…..I don’t know what to tell you?
ksh95,
95% of the world’s population is indoctrinated and they are indoctrinating their children. Therefore, the best way forward is to teach children in primary school more science. We should tell children a simplified story about how the world works according to science.
So, Alan B. is saying that astrology and creationism are harmful, whereas religion is simply a positive aspect in many people’s lives. And ksh95 is saying that adherents of religion, unlike those of astrology, will threaten to blow me up if I tell them that they’re wrong. Can you see why I prefer not to be “strategic” and instead just tell the truth?
I understand perfectly well that there are differences between astrology and religion. I also understand that both have “comforting” aspects as well as harmful ones. And I’ve never advocated that we have to “teach atheism” to teach science. All I’m saying here is that we should have the integrity to be consistent in holding that miraculous claims, whether based in religion or astrology or whatever, are contrary to the scientific way of looking at things.
I don’t want to live in a world without zombies, Sean. You’ll never disprove them. Not as long as I am alive!
Sean,
Your latest comment sounds more reasonable than the tone that I pick up from Natalie Angier. The only “strategy” that I use is to dialogue with people. A great many people seem to think that, “your beliefs are all hogwash” is an opening invitation to a dialogue and then are perplexed when the other person gets defensive and refuses to engage. There is a big difference between speaking the truth about your own beliefs and attacking someone else’s.
Penny writes:
Penny, I agree that religion is faith and science is not. But looking at history I see that religion always impersonates science until it is revealed to be religion. How do we know if what goes as science today (cosmogony, reading the mind of god and so on) is not religion? Most people here seems to identify religion with one specific book, Christianity. Or other book based cosmogonic religions which survived the passage of time. That’s why they are unable to see modern incarnation of cosmogonic religions which use mathematics as their false witness instead of the authority of a book.
Pingback: messiestobjects' messy life
It’s difficult to respect religion or religious beliefs with even a cursory look at history. Let’s not forget the immense bloodshed and that occurred in Europe perpetrated by established and very corrupt religious institutions. Religion also played a large role in the suppression of peasants (or anyone not of the aristocracy or the Church) by asserting that it was their place in the world to suffer (and pay taxes to the powerful). This darkness of nasty religious intolerance and corruption did not occur somewhere far back in geological or evolutionary history, and wasn’t just a transient phenomena, but has taken up a large part of the last thousand years, now practically breathing down our backs, and is still occurring in different forms in large parts of the world. In the scale of history, the Enlightenment just sprouted yesterday, and I’m afraid may not yet have very deep roots.
Scientists who decry the role of religion in society really ought to spend some time looking up the work of scientists who’ve applied the scientific method to this question. Some places to start:
“A Theory of Religion” and “The Future of Religion” by Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge.
“In Gods We Trust” by Scott Atrans.
Allyson,
* Sociopaths/psychopaths compose 30-40% of violent criminals, but this is only a small fraction of the total (~1% of the population). Most successfully play along as cops, lawyers, stock brokers, etc., often being good at jobs that require coolness under stress. They avoid jail because, for most, it’s much more fun on the outside. For a gentle introduction to the subject, I recommend Without Conscience by Robert Hare.
* I submit that a fantasy about meeting your loved ones and eternal freedom from earthly misery and guilt/anxiety is not necessary to be comfortable in this life. You just have to be able to handle the vicissitudes of reality, love what life has to offer, and connect with the people and ideas around you.
I have no idea how to respond to that.
And I submit that you have neither the responsibility nor the right to make those determinations for other people. I can suggest that the world would be just as well off without opera, country music or rap, but it’s not my decision to make.
Natalie: Few scientists, for example, worry about the 77 percent of Americans who insist that Jesus was born to a virgin, an act of parthenogenesis that defies everything we know about mammalian genetics and reproduction.
Duh.
Natalie: Nor do the researchers wring their hands over the 80 percent who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the laws of thermodynamics be damned. …
Duh.
Sean: The laws of physics and biology tell us something about how the world works, and there is no room in there for raising the dead and turning water into wine.
Duh.
So, Sean, if you’d put this God question to rest, there would only be one implication. As it is, there’s always this pesty implication, too:
…some being who is not bound by the same patterns we perceive in the universe, who is by our standards extremely powerful (not necessarily omnipotent, although that would count), and in some way plays a crucial role in the universe (creating it, or keeping it going, etc.).
Man, don’t you hate that. If we could just observe what happened, it would be so easy. Oh, but, Sean, we could always extrapolate 14 billion years back and say that we’ve satisfied the observability requirement of science.
Have you thought of doing that, Sean? I’m sure that would satisfy everyone.
Alan B.,
I don’t think anyone’s discussing outlawing religion; people are free to ignore what scientists say. What’s at stake is the intellectual honesty of science and rational inquiry in general.
You can’t be a biologist and adhere to creationism any more than an engineer can believe that his skyscrapers will be held up by angels — even a bit.
I am not suggesting that that is the case. I am suggesting that some of the comments here imply an evangelism on behalf of atheism that I find as odious as evangelism on behalf of religion. I will fight any attempts by religion to intrude into the realms of science or politics. Otherwise, I can’t see why someone else’s beliefs should concern me – or you – in the slightest. In the words of the philosopher Rodney King, “Why can’t we all just get along?”
If you think that eliminating religion will somehow make the world safe for rational inquiry (or rational behavior), then you have a very mistaken understanding of human nature. Religion is just one of the many tools that people use on behalf of the goal of distorting reality. If we had to squarely face facts all the time, most of us would never get out of bed in the morning.
I agree completely with Sourav above.
I think what it’s about is not going out and telling people what they can and cannot believe, but rather that one should be internally and externally honest. That is, as a scientist it is my job to question things and to regard them with scepticism until reasonably well argued for (I won’t say proven, but that’s another discussion). This also means that I should treat claims of magical interactions the same way weather they are called religion of not. But it does not mean that one need to do it aggressively. When I’m told about the virgin birth or seances or whatnot I can simpley explain that I do belive in that phenomena because they are contrary to every scientific experience ever made, but I will not tell someone that they cannot believe in that anyway. However, I would of course hope that I could instill some doubt in the mind of my conversation partner and make him ask himself the question why he believes what he does.
Somehow when reading this discussion I get the feeling I don’t recognise myself. I never had any problem talking about me being an atheist, or felt that people in my surrounding had. Maybe it comes from living in a very secularised country. During the last years we have, however, had a surge of e.g. creationist activity also on this side of the pond (vide this week’s Nature). But it is still at a very low level.
MJ,
I am very much in favor of sharing your beliefs with others and very much opposed to imposing them on others. What’s the difference? Well, if they haven’t asked you (explicitly or implicitly) what your beliefs are, then they probably aren’t interested and don’t want to hear them. If you are a teacher and tell a captive classroom that science is incompatible with religion, then, unless you are responding to a specific question, you are definitely imposing. I can be fairly aggressive in imposing my political beliefs on others because how they vote affects me and my loved ones. But their religious beliefs – as long as they don’t intrude on politics or science – are their own business and not mine.
Alan B., I agree with you that one shouldn’t impose one’s answer to the “God question” on others. Its important to note though that religious people need to learn this more than anyone else: they come at you in a parking lot or your home asking what God you believe in and if it isn’t Jesus they have no problem telling you your God is a phony and you are going to hell. All this without me ever asking them what their religious beliefs were.