I have to agree with Jerry Coyne here: the program on Faith and Science at this year’s World Science Festival is a mistake. I went to last year’s Festival, and I have great respect for Brian Greene and Tracy Day for bringing together such a massive undertaking. It would be better if they didn’t take money from the Templeton Foundation, but money has to come from somewhere, and I’m not the one paying the bills. I don’t even mind having a panel that talks about religion — it’s a big part of many people’s lives, and there are plenty of issues to be discussed at the intersection of science and religion.
But it would be a lot more intellectually respectable to present a balanced discussion of those issues, rather than the one that is actually lined up. The panelists include two scientists who are Templeton Prize winners — Francisco Ayala and Paul Davies — as well as two scholars of religion — Elaine Pagels and Thupten Jinpa. Nothing in principle wrong with any of those people, but there is a somewhat obvious omission of a certain viewpoint: those of us who think that science and religion are not compatible. And there are a lot of us! Also, we’re right. A panel like this does a true disservice to people who are curious about these questions and could benefit from a rigorous airing of the issues, rather than a whitewash where everyone mumbles pleasantly about how we should all just get along.
I’m not as much of an anti-Templeton fundamentalist as some people are; I won’t take money from them, but I will cooperate with institutions and organizations that do take money from them, even as I grumble about it. (Money laundering as the route to moral purity.) But this event is a perfect example of the ultimately pernicious influence that Templeton has. I disagree with Jerry and others who consider Templeton money a “bribe” to people who are willing to go along with their party line; I have no doubt that Ayala, Davies, Pagels and Jinpa will express only views that they sincerely hold and would still hold in the absence of any monetary reward. What Templeton does is that it hands people with those views a giant megaphone. Francisco Ayala is a respected scientist who happens to believe that science and religion complement each other rather than coming into conflict; that’s fine, although somewhat unremarkable. But then he wins the Templeton Prize, and that exact same opinion gets plastered all over the media.
Panels like this one at the WSF are the same story. Maybe exactly the same event would have been organized even if Templeton had nothing to do with the Festival; but I doubt it. (Update: upon reflection, I don’t know what the process was by which the event was organized, and I shouldn’t cast dark aspersions in the absence of evidence. My real point is that I don’t think that the panel should have happened the way it did, and I don’t want to detract from that.) Plenty of science festivals and museums seem to get along perfectly well without discussing religion at all. And if you did want to discuss it, there’s no way that an honest investigation into how scientists feel about religion would end up leaving out some fully committed atheists who would be pretty uncompromising towards belief.
Four hundred years after Galileo turned his telescope on the heavens, it’s incredibly frustrating that we still have debates over whether the world can be described in purely naturalistic terms, rather than accepting that insight as an amazing accomplishment and moving on to the hard work of articulating its consequences. It’s a shame that the World Science Festival is helping to keep us back, rather than moving us forward.
Let’s do some simple math here:
Sean Carroll’s life=0% religion+100% science, while
Francisco Ayala’ life=50% religion+50% science.
In principle, if you allow x dot y=0 to be your definition of incompatability, then clearly the x-axis and the y-axis in the Cartesean plane are incompatible. However, as will be readily recognized, they are equally valid and important. So it is not even worthwhile debating compatability.
Further, in the (religion,science)-plane, there is one and only one line with coordinates consisting of pure science. As will be readily recognized, the majority of lines are in fact a superposition of a pure-science and a pure-religion line. Therefore, it will be only reasonable to believe that in fact most people live on a line with some weight of religion in it.
As far as the conference is concerned: I dislike NIKE, but they make the jersey for my soccer team, and my love for my soccer team far exceeds my dislike for NIKE, therefore I will wear my NIKE jersey to show support for my team…I could opt for a non-NIKE jersey too (it costs less, will be ripped off in a month, and I will not be able to sell it on eBAY in 30 years)…
Sean:
Good post. I appreciate the honesty and share your fears in the potential misunderstanding. But looking at the class of speakers, it seems the risk is mittigated. I don’t see Paul Davies, Brian Greene et. al. offering any risk to scientific understanding- quite the opposite. The issue then is the position that science and religion have nothing in common is not fairly represented. But is it reasonable to insist on this requirement? Does every public gathering related to scientific understanding need to start with a secular invocation? Is this good for science?
@ JJE
I did not miss the point of his post. In general, I agree that it would be best to have all sides represented if the purpose of the panel is to discuss pros and cons of the issue. I also fully agree that science and religion are two separate entities and should not mix. When they do, we arrive at the mess we currently are struggling with. My thoughts are focused off the main idea and on the few sentences in which I felt intolerance.
I started my original comment with the phrase that I found objectionable. I will repeat it:
That, to me at least, indicates an intolerance of a having a different opinion publicized.
You are right that Sean doesn’t attack anyone, nor support it. My use of the word attack was more a general idea of how skeptics as a group are moving against people who seem to disdain rational thought. It was only used to suggest the feeling that we have an “us” vs “them” thing going here. And we do have the “us vs them” going.
I do consider these quotes a type of sniping. Its just more subtle than calling them idiots or something of that nature. And perhaps sniping is too strong a word.
Elaine Pagels may be a scholar of religion but that doesn’t necessarily mean she brings a religious viewpoint to science. There’s an interesting interview with her at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pagels03/pagels_index.html
where she mentions her interest in the psychological basis of religious belief (scroll down to the last page, though the rest is worth reading too).
This post reminds me of a great article/talk given by Steven Weinberg called “A Designer Universe?“, in which he finishes:
“In an e-mail message from the American Association for the Advancement of Science I learned that the aim of this conference is to have a constructive dialogue between science and religion. I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.”
Of course the rest of the article is excellent too, it is this bit that I think is relevant to the topic; would’ve been nice to have a Weinberg on the panel to balance.
Here is one of my favorite Steven Weinberg quotes:
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
If religious folks or non-believers take offense at that, great. It is about time that someone told it like it is. Religion has had a ridiculous free pass from criticism, and it is not rude or aggressive or invective to point this out.
Good post. I’m sure if you challenged the organizers on this, they would smirk and point out that the panel had no religious fundamentalists, either.
Templeton and its allies have been quite effective in framing this in a way that portrays naturalists as extreme and intolerant.
Bravo, Sean. I wish they had you on that panel.
This reminds me of this awkward video they put on after you walk through the Hall of Human Origins in the American Museum on Natural History. They have people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller talking about how they see no contradiction with science and their faith. There is no inclusion of people with contrary opinions — such as Dawkins or Dan Dennett. In my opinion, by presenting only one side of the debate, the museum is being disingenuous. It’s a political move, and it damages their reputation as a scientific institution. (the same reasoning applies to this faith and science panel in the WSF)
When I visited the Natural History Museum in London, it was quite refreshing to see that they didn’t feel the need to apologize for their exhibitions with these disclaimers.
Pingback: The modes of inquiry are, to be sure, very different - Butterflies and Wheels
This kind of panel selection, which was no doubt influenced directly by the Templeton Fundation’s own preferences, is not too unusual- in the world of political propaganda! Its just the old tactic used in places that have formally free speech but where political discussion is kept within fairly narrow part of the spectrum. Obviously the US is the classic example….
Let’s not forget, too, how vulnerable these accomodationist arguments really are. They are rife with internal contradictions, don’t agree even between fellow accomodationists, and are mostly dependent on ignoring/minimizing the very non-NOMA history of most religions. Not surprising that the Templetonians can’t allow a compatibility skeptic on the panel; the chances of an embarrassing rout of their propaganda line would be just too high.
@30, You quote Steven Weinberg “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious”
Then how to explain the birth of science from Wis 11:21 – “God ordered all things by measure, number, weight”, which blew away the commonly held belief in antiquity that nature was god or gods.
How do you explain the contributions to modern thinking from medieval bishops and cardinals such as Grossetest and Cusa?
How do you explain the contributions from the Jesuits to fields of study such as astronomy, meteorology and seismology?
How can you explain the number of ‘fathers’ of their field being Catholic – Secchi (astrophysics), Agricola (minerology), Steno (geology and stratiography), Versalius,(human anatomy), Egyptology (Kircher and Champollion), Mendel (genetics), Borrelli (biomechanics), Lavoisier (chemistry), Pasteur (bacteriology), Galileo (physics and science), Hauy (crystallography), Fabrizi (embryology) … and the list goes on.
Funny how the Big Bang, proposed by a Catholic priest, was rejected by those who felt it had philosophical implications which could not be accepted – Hoyle and Einstein for instance.
Funny how Semmelweis was not listened to when he suggested that something as simple as washing your hands would reduce infant deaths in hospitals.
Funny how Mendel’s work on Genetics came in for criticism and was ignored for nearly 100 years before his contribution to the field was recognised.
I suggest you read up on your history of science. Not least Duhem, Jaki, Hannam and Woods and then re-read Weinberg’s quote and ask yourself whether it is true or not, or perhaps ask yourself whether there is a ‘theology’ that does support science.
.. and let’s ignore the Weinberg’s veiled insult that my faith renders me unintelligent.
Perhaps the anti-accomodationists are being excluded because, despite their numbers, they are so clearly in error. After all, nobody seems to be upset that astrologers haven’t been invited to participate in the astronomy sessions.
The anti-accomodationist claim is a philosophical one (no good scientist disagrees with the idea that science is factually incompatible with a long list of religious claims of various sorts, such as a 6,000 year-old earth). Yet it remains largely undefined. Why does (or should) science require philosophical naturalism? The scientific method merely requires following the evidence wherever it leads. Indeed, the embrace of philosophical naturalism might impede the scientific process by precluding, a priori, a “supernatural” explanation to a given set of facts.
The anti-accomodationist claim also runs afoul of the evidence in that there are significant numbers of good scientists who are believers of various sorts. I know that people like Jerry Coyne say that facts like these only suggest something like the idea that marriage and adultery are compatible because so many adulterers are married. Forgive me for being blunt, but that claim is just plain stupid. The qualifier of “good” scientists demonstrates the obvious. Does Jerry really wish to assert that an adulterer is a good spouse? On the other hand, were there a significant list of good scientists who were also astrologers, or alchemists, or some such, the anti-accomodationists might have some evidence.
But they don’t.
Unless and until they produce some, the anti-accomodationists have a philosophical predisposition in search of an argument, no matter how strongly they believe it and no matter how loudly they shout it. Nothing more. Without some evidence, there’s no reason to include them in a scientific endeavor such as the WSF.
“Funny how Mendel’s work on Genetics came in for criticism and was ignored for nearly 100 years before his contribution to the field was recognised.”
Yes, very funny.
He published a single paper on his work in german in an obscure journal “Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn” in 1866 before abandoning the work for his pastoral duties.
His work was not ignored for a century. It was rediscovered at the turn of the last century when several others such as de Vries and Corren made similar findings to Mendel, but unlike him they realized the significance of the results to the general concept of heredity and evolution.
The rest of your list simply shows one thing – that it doesn’t matter whether you are religious or not if you make scientific discoveries – just so long as you keep your religion out of your science (you will notice that none of the great discoveries of the founding fathers of these various scientific disciplines involves religion).
Actually, Rob, there are very few good scientists who are believers, and the more citations and prominence, the fewer believers who are left in the cohort.
Ian—in those times, one had to be a stealth Catholic to do science. For example, the only way
Mendel could afford to study was through the Church. I would hope that Mankind has grown up since. Just as there were a lot of “communists” in the old Soviet Union, there were a lot of scientists in the church. Yes, most, like Newton, were also believers, but the entire worldview was different then, more supersitious, less knowledge. Name some current good scientists who
are now abbes, monks etc.
Gordon — The studies I’ve seen roughly range from 25-50% (though I’m aware of the 1998 re-do of the Leuba studies re the NAS which suggest lower numbers). That’s not “very few.” Given the inherently subversive nature of science, I think those numbers are actually surprisingly high. What percentage do you suppose are astrologers or alchemists?
Pingback: Who Should Be Included in S&R Discussions? - Science and Religion Today
Rob: That is a straw man argument. Astrology and alchemy have been effectively debunked.
Religion continues to be societally acceptable in so-called educated circles, so even if it is basically as looney as astrology, it persists because people can partition their beliefs and hold incompatible
views. Certainly, religion is completely incompatible with a scientific mindset.
“Certainly, religion is completely incompatible with a scientific mindset.”
Then you should be able *certainly* to demonstrate it. All I’ve seen so far are embarrassed and whining demands for philosophical comformity. “You can’t be one of us and think *that*.” The horror! But I may have missed something, so go ahead, present your evidence.
Rob: A supernatural explanation can never be a scientific explanation. Anything that has an effect on the universe can, in principle, be measured and found to exist; anything that exists in the universe is, by the correct definition, natural.
As for the constant and irrelevant “religious scientists” argument: that some people can both do science and believe in religion does not in any way imply that the fundamental philosophies are compatible, because the human brain does not (unfortunately) require a logically consistent philosophical framework to operate. If we define a good scientist as someone who acts and thinks consistently with the principles of science, as opposed to someone who merely does good science in one compartment of his or her life, then yes, a good scientist cannot be religious.
Also, Newton was an alchemist.
Please, Kevin, you’re embarrassing yourself.
“Anything that has an effect on the universe can, in principle, be measured and found to exist; anything that exists in the universe is, by the correct definition, natural.”
You’ll note that I put “supernatural” in quotes in #37.
“[T]hat some people can both do science and believe in religion does not in any way imply that the fundamental philosophies are compatible, because the human brain does not (unfortunately) require a logically consistent philosophical framework to operate.”
Of course it does. Your off-handed reference to cognitive dissonance merely suggests that the inference isn’t a mandatory conclusion. It can be overcome by better evidence. Got any?
“If we define a good scientist as someone who acts and thinks consistently with the principles of science, as opposed to someone who merely does good science in one compartment of his or her life, then yes, a good scientist cannot be religious.”
Argument by assertion. What a joke.
“Also, Newton was an alchemist.”
Indeed he was. He was a product of his times and limited by his situation and by the facts available to him. Of course, your having to play the Newton card makes my point about the lack of good scientists today who are astrologers and alchemists. Thanks so much.
I would think anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the 20th Century would know Mr Weinberg is mistaken.
Historians might take some offence at having their subject treated with such cavalier disregard for reality.
Or in Mr Weinberg’s case above, tells it like it isn’t, eh.
It is amusing how even folk who pride themselves on their devotion to reason and evidence as sole arbiters of all so readily swallow a false quip so long as it is amenable to their beliefs.
And, Shorter Sean Carroll:
Shock! Horror! Other people organize discussion that isn’t the discussion Sean Carroll wants to have! Pictures at 11!
I’m here all week, folks. Try the veal!
A reference to cognitive dissonance by itself, in regards to any two different philosophies, would only suggest that the inference wasn’t mandatory. Such a reference in this specific case, where the existence of “religious scientists” is your _only_ support for making the inference and any rational comparison of scientific and religious philosophies shows them to conflict, certainly does more than just suggesting.
You clearly missed the point of my definition of a good scientist. I specifically prefaced it with “if,” knowing that such a definition is not the commonly used one. That definition was presented to support further the point that someone’s description of himself as following a philosophy may rely on only a compartmentalized conception (the person who just does good science) rather than a coherent worldview (the person who acts and thinks with the principles of science).
Finally, you did not ask about a list of scientists _today_, you asked for a list of good scientists who _were_ also astrologers, alchemists, etc. Your response to my example, in fact, shows Gordon’s point (#42) to be even more valid than it already was.
“I would think anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the 20th Century would know Mr Weinberg is mistaken.”
Actually, it’s quite simple to make the claim (though keeping a straight face is tough). You simply label that which is evil “religion,” as in “Josef’s Stalin’s brand of communism, while virulently anti-religion, was actually based upon a cult of personality committed to stamping out all opposition and was thus effectively a religion; thus it wasn’t anti-religion per se, but was *really* anti-opposition.” The League of the Militant Godless should have been called “The League of Those in Love with Josef.”
See, it’s easy. Philosophical predisposition and presupposition trump the actual facts much of the time.
“Such a reference in this specific case, where the existence of “religious scientists” is your _only_ support for making the inference….”
It is not my only support, but it’s not my burden of going forward and not my burden of persuasion. Those who claim that one can’t consistently be a believer and a good scientist bear the burden of supporting and demonstrating the claim. I don’t need to offer any support for my position for your claim to fail by default.
“[A]ny rational comparison of scientific and religious philosophies shows them to conflict, certainly does more than just suggesting.”
You keep *saying* that, but you don’t *support* it and certainly haven’t *demonstrated* it. Argument by assertion isn’t evidence. Hand-wave all you want, but nobody should be fooled.
“Finally, you did not ask about a list of scientists _today_, you asked for a list of good scientists who _were_ also astrologers, alchemists, etc.”
I did, but I also specifically used the present tense in #37 (“there are significant numbers of good scientists who are believers of various sorts”) and in #40 (“What percentage do you suppose are astrologers or alchemists?”), so I thought the context was clear.
Rob: You need evidence that religion is looney and incompatible with science?—-read the Bible,
version of choice (or the Koran, or…). Sure a scientist with cognitive dissonance can do science, but core religious beliefs are magical thinking, superstitious–scientific beliefs are not, they follow cause, effect chains mostly, and make verifiable predictions. Whenever religion tries to do this, it is a huge embarrassment.