Over at the Intersection, Chris Mooney is concerned that we haven’t had a science/religion tiff in what, days? So he wants to offer a defense of organizations like the National Center for Science Education, who choose to promote science by downplaying any conflicts between science and religion. For example, the NCSE sponsors a Faith Project, where you can be reassured that scientists aren’t nearly as godless as the newspapers would have you believe.
In the real world, scientists have different stances toward religion. Some of us think that science and religion are (for conventional definitions of science and religion) incompatible. Others find them perfectly consistent with each other. (It’s worth pointing out that “X is true” and “People exist who believe X is true” are not actually the same statement, despite what Chad and Chris and others would have you believe. I’ve tried to emphasize that distinction over and over, to little avail.)
In response to this situation, we uncompromising atheists have a typically strident and trouble-making idea: organizations that bill themselves as “centers for science education” and “associations for science” and “academies of science” should not take stances on matters of religion. Outlandish, I know. But we think that organizations dedicated to science should not wander off into theology, even with the best of intentions. Stick with talking about science, and everyone should be happy.
But they’re not happy; Chris and others (Josh Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas is a thoughtful example) think that the NCSE can be more effective if it proactively tries to convince people that science and religion need not be incompatible. As an argument toward this conclusion, Chris attempts to horrify us by offering the following hypothetical conversation between a religious believer and an NCSE representative:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: As a policy, we only talk about science and to not take any stance on religion. So we couldn’t comment on that.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: All we can really tell you is that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, and universally accepted within the scientific community.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: ….
To which I can only reply … um, yeah? That doesn’t seem very bad at all to me. Do we seriously want representatives of the NCSE saying “No, the claim that accepting evolution is the road to damnation is based on a misreading of Scripture and is pretty bad theology. If we go back to Saint Augustine, we see that the Church has a long tradition of…” Gag me with a spoon, as I understand the kids say these days.
Of course, we could also imagine something like this:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: Oh, don’t worry. There’s no such thing as “damnation,” your pastor has just been misleading you.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: Well, that will happen. Prolonged exposure to scientific ways of thinking can lead people to abandon their religious beliefs. But don’t worry, you’ll be happier and have a more accurate view of how the universe works if that’s what happens.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: That would be great! Because that’s what we are. But it’s not as depressing as you make it out to be; correctly understanding how the world works is the first step toward making the most out of life.
How awesome would that be? I don’t actually advocate this kind of dialogue in this particular context — as I just said, I think science organizations should simply steer clear. But these answers have a considerable benefit, in that I think they’re “true.”
That’s the major point. Advocacy and educational organizations have the goal of supporting science and education the best way they can, but there are limits. For example, they should stick to the truth. I tried to make this point in my post about politicians and critics — some people have as their primary goal advocating for some sort of cause, whereas others are simply devoted to the truth. But an organization advocating for science needs to take both into consideration.
And there are some scientists — quite a few of us, actually — who straightforwardly believe that science and religion are incompatible. There are absolutely those who disagree, no doubt about that. But establishing the truth is a prior question to performing honest and effective advocacy, not one we can simply brush under the rug when it’s inconvenient or doesn’t make for the best sales pitch. Which is why it’s worth going over these tiresome science/religion debates over and over, even in the face of repeated blatant misrepresentation of one’s views. If science and religion are truly incompatible, then it would be dishonest and irresponsible to pretend otherwise, even if doing so would soothe a few worried souls. And if you want to argue that science and religion are actually compatible (not just that there exist people who think so), by all means make that argument — it’s a worthy discussion to have. But it’s simply wrong to take the stance that it doesn’t matter whether science and religion are compatible, we still need to pretend they are so as not to hurt people’s feelings. That’s not being honest.
I have no problem with the NCSE or any other organization pointing out that there exist scientists who are religious. That’s an uncontroversial statement of fact. But I have a big problem with them making statements about whether religious belief puts you into conflict with science (or vice-versa), or setting up “Faith Projects,” or generally taking politically advantageous sides on issues that aren’t strictly scientific. And explaining to people where their pastors went wrong when talking about damnation? No way.
Right now there is not a strong consensus within the scientific community about what the truth actually is vis-a-vis science and religion; I have my views, but sadly they’re not universally shared. So the strategy for the NCSE and other organizations should be obvious: just stay away. Stick to talking about science. Yes, that’s a strategy that may lose some potential converts (as it were). So be it! The reason why this battle is worth fighting in the first place is that we’re dedicated to promulgating the truth, not just to winning a few political skirmishes for their own sakes. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? (Mt. 16:26.)
@ Nathan
“Also, Atheists, as far as I’m concerned have every bit as much of a religion as Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. do.”
Don’t play word games.
We aren’t talking about religion in the sense of “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.” (New Oxford American Dictionary) Then we have to start talking about sex being a religion, politics being a religion, sports being a religion, etc. That’s a waste of time.
Also, don’t confuse passion in supporting a position with religious zeal. If you argue with your math teacher that 0.9999… < 1, he may get very frustrated and may argue passionately about how wrong you are (and you would be). And you may lose credibility because you can't support your side of the argument. But his passion about the topic doesn't make him guilty of possessing "religious fervor".
"according to some, the very fact that I believe in any kind of higher power, let alone making the incredibly bad choice to believe in multiple ones, makes my opinion useless."
The same fate is invited by anyone who proposes a belief they can't justify. Any opinion that is provided without support is useless, at least with regard to understanding the natural world. Maybe you are a Yankees fan. Good for you. Is there anything that can make that preference of opinion "right" or "wrong"? That opinion is useless. Maybe you believe in one or more gods. What support do you have for it?
If you can't justify it any better than you can your preference for the Yankees (or whatever) then yes, your opinion is useless in matters of understanding the natural world. If on the other hand you got out your handy cell phone and made a call: "Hey Zeus, you and Odin, come on over here. I want to introduce you to someone. Z. bring a thunderbolt or two and make sure O. rides Sleipnir over here?", when they showed up on an 8 legged horse bearing lightning, then we might take your opinion more seriously. Of course, your evidence might not be so vulgar and obvious (it might be incredibly subtle to the average layperson like the evidence for quantum theory), but at least you gotta bring something to the table. Otherwise, there is no distinguishing you from Pastafarians and an endless parade of arbitrary competing beliefs without support.
Gag me with a spoon, as I understand the kids say these days.
These days? That is so 80’s, like totally. But even I am not immune to the passage of time. Once, when trying to demonstrate to my stepdaughter that I listen to some modern music, I cited R.E.M. as an example, and then realised that, at the time, they had already been around for more than 20 years.
Christianity can be understood rationally, and one will be sure of it if this one reads the “Theologico-Political Treatise” by Spinoza. But what is important is the way to understand things, there are some intelligent Christians and some stupid ones, nonetheless that is the same for atheists.
Pingback: 20 January 2010 « blueollie
Chris attempts to horrify us by offering the following hypothetical conversation between a religious believer and an NCSE representative:…
It’s always easier to get those hypothetical dialogues to go the way you want when you are writing both sides of them. This is a trick which Plato understood very well.
Remind me again why science blogs should take stands on matters of religion. And why organizations promoting harmony between science and religion shouldn’t.
Though I guess I should ask myself why I’m surprised that a guy who has written a book promoting one stupid religion (“the multiverse”) should spend his time bashing the other stupid religions.
The issue is fairly simple in my opinion. Religion is a vehicle for emotional reflection and behavior, while science is based on observation and hard factual data. They can co-exist if religious people interpret their religion as a metaphor for living life, rather than a literal definition. Religion becomes dangerous when people fail to separate the spiritual aspect from reality (see Jihad, the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Hitler [not necessarily religious, but based on the same principle] etc.). As Cartesian said, there are some stupid Christians and Atheists, just as there are intelligent ones. The basis of religion are behavioral and emotional in nature, the teachings are simply a medium. Any teachings that can convince people can be used to manipulate the masses, it’s been the basis of politics and societal structure for centuries.
I attended Catholic school through 8th grade and went to church regularly during that time as part of the curriculum. During that time, I always questioned religion and never saw the point. The answer to everything was God is good, forgiveness….and so on. I’m now Agnostic. I’m Agnostic for the reason that science cannot prove, nor disprove, the existence of Jesus. I believe this stance is most accurate. I don’t believe that everything in the Bible literally happened, but rather Jesus was a vehicle for change, a philosopher of sorts. The goal of his mission was to create a better society of the poor in his community by changing their mental state, their view of life. It’s that simple. I may not believe in the “magical” aspect of Christianity, but I do believe in the lessons and morals taught through the teachings. However, if you take into account the broad view consisting of all religions in the world, it’s easy to denounce religion as fallacy.
Andrew,
Modern cognitive science (cognitive psychology, neuroscience, etc.) shows that pretty much everything that the soul was invented to explain is actually done by the brain. The mind is an essentially computational process, that can’t exist without a kind of computer to do the computing.
For thousands of years, people didn’t know that. Now we do. The brain is what does our thinking, remembering, emoting, valuing, and planning—all the stuff that makes us persons, and makes us the particular ersons we are.
You don’t need a soul to do that. And given that the brain is doing those things, there’s not much left for a soul to do or to be. Without your brain, you aren’t you, and when your brain dies, you cease to exist.
Most of the experts on that sort of stuff—cognitive scientists, philosophers of mind—think that religion is just another thing that the brain does. It’s largely a side-effect of biases built into us by evolution. In particular, we have different machinery in our heads for thinking about simple physical stuff (rocks, water, etc.) than for dealing about agents (animals and people, with goals and plans).
Evolution gave us the useful ability to think about minds in a very different way than we think about non-minds. It didn’t give us the knowledge that the agents are evolved machines, and that minds are made out of non-mind stuff.
That makes us prone to thinking about things in basically dualistic terms, and to find disembodied souls plausible.
There are other cognitive biases we’re evolved to have because by and large, they’re good for us, but those biases also make us prone to making certain kinds of mistakes.
For example, we’re prone to seeing agents and agency where there aren’t any, because the cost of failing to recognize those things is often high, but the cost of falsely recognizing them (where they’re not) is low.
For example, if you see a lion where there isn’t one, you usually only suffer a momentary scare. But if you don’t see a lion where there is one, you’re likely dead. Likewise, if you think someone’s trying to hurt you, and they’re not, you can often figure that out without too bad a misunderstanding. But if you don’t think someone is trying to hurt you, and they are, you may end up a lot worse off.
So basically, people are prone to finding souls plausible, and to see souls or intentional actions of souls where they’re not. In situations where you don’t have a reality check to disabuse you of the false positives, you’re likely to end up believing in souls that do a variety of things on purpose, whether those souls actually exist or not, and whether or not those things were done by any agent at all.
People also have other relevant biases, like a bracketing bias that makes us inclined to think that the opinions of people around us are more or less reasonable, and to take a “moderate” position, all other things being equal. That’s the kind of thing that leads to well-known phenomena of conformity, obedience to authority, and groupthink.
You can probably see roughly how this fits together to explain religion. People are prone to
0. believing in souls as different things from physically instantiated minds,
1. believing in invisible disembodied agents, and attributing random things to them
2. looking for “meaning” of events in terms of actions of such agents, and finding it where
it doesn’t actually exist, in the absence of evidence to the contrary and
3. being inclined to believe the kinds of things others believe, in the absence of (and sometimes in the face of) evidence to the contrary
These are all well-known psychological phenomena used to explain other things, but when you combine them, it’s a recipe for popular delusions of a strikingly religion-like sort.
If that’s true, the fact that religion is widespread is not evidence that there’s any truth to it. It’s only evidence that that’s the kind of trap people are prone to falling into, due to cognitive biases that evolved for other reasons.
It’s also plausible that religion itself has been selected for, because it often plays a useful roles in getting groups to cooperate, and especially to cooperate to exploit other groups. That’s more controversial, though.
Heh, I’ve just posted at Mooney’s blog with a similar set of responses an atheist scientist might have to these three questions. But more importantly, I wondered how Mooney himself would suggest these questions to be answered. After all, if he rejects a neutral position of the NCSE on the basis of this hypothetical conversation, can he show that it is plausible that his own strategy of accommodationism fairs any better on these questions? I’m not convinced that he can.
For instance, what would the answer to the first question be? Probably something like this (except hat it would likely be more
mealy-moutheddiplomatically worded):Exactly! I wrote a reply on this yesterday, but ended up not posting it as I’ve had a very irritating history on Discover with people who deliberately just do not get it when it comes to the religion/science debate (mostly on Mooney’s blog). Going by his notion of what it means to test something, any time an experiment is over and documented it is no longer scientific, since it is impossible to go back to the exact same conditions (e.g. space, time) that existed when the experiment was conducted. If that is not true, then it is just as scientifically valid to look at evidence from isotope based dating and determine that objects on earth are well over 6000 years old, which he says is not a scientific hypothesis.
Pingback: Should Science Groups Share Their Views on S&R? - Science and Religion Today
Religion is a human anthropological institution. Humans have this propensity to worship something, anything, whether it is God or reason.
The ancient Greeks and Romans (as we) loved philosopy, so when Jesus Christ had the audacity to tell Pilate that “he who seeks truth comes to him”, Pilate derisively remarked: “What IS truth”? Pilate well understood that what is “true” depends on observational frame of reference, and he clearly rejected the notion of absolute “truth”…especially that truth could be embodied in a person.
I’m about half-way through Sean’s book and have to confess that what he says gives me pause. To Sean’s credit, he is very objective and quite open, presenting the history of science, the principal points of view and then his own take on things.
When I got half-way through the book, I took a look-see at the ending conclusions and found them to be fully consistent with Sean’s take on the physics of the early 21st century.
It makes me very nervous to hear anybody speaking about “facts”, “truth” and “right”. The “fact” that Sean presented a number of points of view shows that he of all people understands the counterintuite scientific findings of the last 200 years can be interpereted equally accurately in different ways.
While we may each have our own reasons for “picking and choosing” a preferred approach, being assertive has its downside.
The presumed insignificance or significance of life and the importances of the process of observation in the matter of universal existence are major issues.
The living matter in my body has never known death…it has existed at least (though not unchanged) for 3.2 billion years…25% of the time since the “big bang”. Jurassic Park informs us, I believe correctly, that “life will find a way”. Beyond Hitler, beyond Pol Pot, beyond the Tsunami of 04 and beyond Haiti…beyond time itself, life continues.
I don’t personally believe that the existence or non-existence of God is a religious issue. There are as many points of view on religion as there are human cultures…in fact people in the world. Each peson’s take on this matter of religion is as unique as his or her finger-print.
In my opinion, God is as real as life itself…”He finds a way”. If life is not presumed to be significant, neither is God.
Of all my least favorite religious subjects, “Apologetics” ranks as my personally “most disliked”. Apologetics is “defending the faith”. To my mind, God needs no defending. We can argue until we are blue in the face about his existence or non-existence…it matters not. The Christian Bible tells us that working against the divine is like kicking a brick wall…we only hurt our own foot. If we truly anger the almighty and work against his purposes in any really important way, the force of His anger is like a rock falling on us…it will grind us to powder.
I’ve seen humans ignore the forces of biological, cultural and political reality- and be ground to powder. Whether those things seemed arbitrary or not, mattered not. By ignoring, or even being blissfully nieve about “the facts of social existence”, they found out just how real and personal our relationship with these forces can be.
I am a biologist. Life and consciousness are important to me, not just because of my academic background, but because I myself am (an extremely complex) living thing.
The physics of the 20th and 21st centuries strongly implies that biological complexity and consciousness of all kinds is important and integral to the very structure of the universe. I’m very skeptical of any point of view which marginalizes the importance and significance of life in the universe…including its cumulative effect on universal development and evolution.
What do you know that I don’t? The way you speak of it, this god of yours must be very concrete. Perhaps you could communicate your evidence for this god such that I or any 3rd party could be convinced regardless of our cultural/religious background?
Because there is no act of greater hubris than someone claiming exclusive knowledge to an earth shattering piece of knowledge without intending to actually subject it to scrutiny.
Sorry, but if you say that, it sounds to me like you don’t know much about current physics or consciousness, or the relevant philosophy. (Especially if you think it’s not a controversial, fringe idea in science and philosophy.)
If physics “strongly implies” that sort of thing, most physicists have somewhow managed to miss it, along with almost all neuroscientists, cognitive pyschologists, and philosophers of mind.
Where did you get this idea?
Prolonged exposure to scientific ways of thinking can lead people to abandon their religious beliefs. But don’t worry, you’ll be happier and have a more accurate view of how the universe works if that’s what happens.
Where is the scientific evidence for this statement?
In general, surveys have found that religious people are happier or just as happy as the non-religious.
@ capitalistpig… #56
Promoting harmony between science and religion is not the role of NAS and NCSE. They represent scientists and the scientific endeavor. The scientists they represent are like all of us all over the place as far as their take on religion. Individual scientists, like PZ Myers and Francis Collins, can speak for themselves.
Nathan wrote: “Also, I notice that here, particularly, religion seems to be a euphemism for Christianity. ”
Yes! and that is what makes this tremendously annoying. Sean Carroll would hardly want some ignoramus in physics to be prattling about quantum mechanics; but he doesn’t see any downside in himself engaging in the same idiocy. He has the arrogance that many physicists have that knowing the Standard Model, they know all about everything.
If Sean wants everything to be scientific, then the answers the NCSE gives in that hypothetical conversation with a religious believer have to have scientific studies backing them – and they don’t!!! Shows the real (lack of) depth of Sean’s commitment to science. He just wants to bash religion.
#56, CIP : “Though I guess I should ask myself why I’m surprised that a guy who has written a book promoting one stupid religion (”the multiverse”) should spend his time bashing the other stupid religions.”
This is typical religious behavior. Sean may have left “religion” behind, but the template still sticks around in his head.
And so can religious organizations, I might add.
John Williams –
Yes, I think I’m versed enough in both, as a consequence of having to defend my position pretty frequently. Religion’s arguments are empty and pander to natural human faults.
Nathan, Arun,
Not everybody here assumes religion means Christianity, or something particularly similar to Christianity.
The arguments I’ve been sketching undermine pretty much all religion with a supernatural or mystical/spiritual component. (E.g., a belief in multiple gods, or Karma, or reincarnation, or just the ability of mystics to get in touch with the Ultimate Nature of Reality.)
That includes the vast majority of religion on the ground, Eastern and Western, animist, pagan, New Age, you name it. It even includes at least most forms of Buddhism, even (I think) the forms that overtly claim to have no supernatural component; they generally have quasi-supernatural presuppositions about how the mind works that modern science casts grave doubt on.
I suppose you could call it an alternate universe, depending on where you spend most of your time.
Usually it’s just called reality.
Sorry. Snark aside, a lot depends on what you mean by “believe in science,” and which and just how broadly you can interpret the term “religion.”
A lot of people think that science and religion are compatible only because they haven’t analyzed religion enough, and don’t know the relevant science and philosophy.
But nobody’s claiming that people can’t accept a lot of religious ideas and a lot of scientific ideas, too.
There are scientists who are religious, including some excellent ones.
A more accurate dialogue would be –
Religious believer: Nern ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner…
Paul W.:
What you term religion can exist without belief. Therefore knocking belief into the ground doesn’t answer the question.
E.g., as a person from a non-Christian/on-Islamic culture, I do not know what mental state corresponds to “believing in the electron”. (Since belief seems to be an integral part of Christianity I mention this.) I understand the electron and its properties to some limited extent. If I knew nothing of the electron other than its name, and that physicists talked about it, then I would say, physicists speak of the electron. I would not have any belief or disbelief in the electron, whatever that means. Likewise, I have no belief or disbelief in “braided monoidal categories” – whatever those are (a mathematicatical term picked at random). I am hard pressed to imagine what it means to believe in or not believe in “braided monoidal categories”. Likewise, I do not believe in karma. Nor do I disbelieve in it. I have some limited understanding of what it is supposed to mean (and yes, the knowledge that there is no apparent physical substrate through which the law of karma can operate.) There is no belief or disbelief. I am aware of long causal chains through which human actions have consequences on humans, and therefore – because of my understanding of the karma idea – do try to be honest, truthful, sharing of knowledge and of things. If you ask me whether a child was born blind because of karma, my answer is – that cannot be an explanation. You may say I act because of “belief” – but how you have access to my mental states is something you’ll have to explain.
Likewise, if I had understanding of “braided monoidal categories” and could do something useful with it, I might be publishing mathematics papers, for instance. Since I do not, I don’t. There is no question of belief or disbelief.
I don’t know if you can understand – in this culture to understand and to believe have been conflated, when in reality they are very different.
Let me try one more (weak) analogy. A person is a baseball fan, say of the Yankees, and does things not out of belief or disbelief (and not from any ignorance or knowledge). Can we discard the idea that a person’s actions spring from beliefs? Do so, and then reapproach the whole question of religion.
-Arun
Pingback: more treachery « we should be reading