Science and religion

Are science and religion compatible? Science and religion are two different ways of acquiring an understanding of the universe we live in. Although the conclusions they reach at times contradict one another (as Galileo so famously discovered in Renaissance Europe[1], and as immunization clinic volunteers more recently discovered in Pakistan[2]), neither science nor religion is defined by its content, but rather by its methods. Hence the question: is it possible for both perspectives to be recognized as worthy human enterprises? Can an individual person be simultaneously engaged in both? I’ve encountered two reasonable answers.

The first, held by many intelligent friends of mine including several scientists, is that the two are “nonoverlapping magisteria[3]”, that is, they are tools for promoting understanding in entirely different domains of inquiry. One deals with the empirical, that which can be observed and quantified; the other deals with the spiritual, that which is so fundamental to the operation of physical reality that it cannot be examined by physical means. The neuronal membrane potential can be measured; G-d cannot.

The second view, favored mainly by those who prefer the term “atheist” to “agnostic”, is that religion is inherently flawed as a means of learning about the universe. Science is rigorous, self-correcting, open-minded, and perpetually skeptical, whereas religion is fuzzy, establishmentarian, dogmatic, and resistant to challenges. Truth is truth, they say, and one’s approach to ascertaining truth must make sense, in any domain. Religious faith, proponents of this view hold, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It is intellectually primitive at best, lazy or even dishonest at worst.

Neither view is likely entirely correct. The first ignores the fact that science specifically precludes faith: if it can't be demonstrated, or conversely, falsified, it can't be asserted. The second ignores the fact that many highly intelligent, thoughtful people hold religious beliefs. Carl Sagan, posthumous champion of the modern-day atheist (a distinction he might abdicate, were he still alive), quotes an anonymous religious leader in his 1996 book The Demon-Haunted World[4]:

“Honest religion, more familiar than its critics with the distortions and absurdities perpetrated in its name, has an active interest in encouraging a healthy skepticism for its own purposes… There is the possibility for religion and science to forge a potent partnership against pseudo-science. Strangely, I think it would soon be engaged also in opposing pseudo-religion.”

Does religion promote or discourage skepticism? If religious thinking does in fact permit questioning, doubt, and revision of cherished beliefs, then certainly a productive, progressive relationship with science is possible. But what form would that take? How does religious skepticism work? How does it resemble, and how does it differ from, the scientific method? I welcome any insights you might have.

---

[1] http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727330/

[3] http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

[4] http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle/dp/0345409469

Response to a Joss Whedon quotation

Whedon’s quotation brings up an interesting point: the word faith has two meanings, and we should be precise about which one we mean when we use it. Let’s take a closer look, and see how well the term applies to theists and humanists.

In one sense, faith is belief. Faith means accepting as true a claim for which the evidence is not conclusive. I personally believe that the Earth orbits the sun, that Barack Obama is President of the United States, and that I need oxygen to survive. These claims are not up for debate; the evidence in their favor is conclusive, and so these particular beliefs do not constitute faith.

I also believe that the 2008 New York Yankees were the greatest baseball team of all time, that brains are awesome, and that OJ did it. I believe that I will succeed in life. These claims are very much up for debate; the evidence in their favor is inconclusive, and so these particular beliefs might satisfy the criteria for faith. Rather, they would if I believed them without doubt, or at least to an extent not justified by the available evidence. As a pain-in-the-ass skeptic, I don’t.

In another sense, faith is practice. Faith means behaving as if something were absolutely true because our humanity dictates we do so. Faith is the way we make decisions that do not warrant a rational approach. For example, I am intensely loyal to the people I love. If someone in my family, or my girlfriend, were involved in a conflict, I would take their side without hesitation. This is not rational: a strictly rational actor would weigh costs and benefits, right and wrong. Concepts like “fairness” and “consequences” would come into play.

So, which of these meanings applies to religious faith? Would a theist lay down money that G-d exists? Or would she simply be inclined to live her life according to a religious paradigm, epistemology notwithstanding? I don’t have an answer to this question because I’m not a theist.

I would however argue that only the second meaning applies to humanism. As a humanist I have faith in humanity. I believe it’s important to strive to improve the human condition, whether or not humanity deserves it; on the latter point, I remain agnostic. 

Great short stories

A college acquaintance of mine, with whom I have not kept in touch, but who consistently manufactures witty Facebook statuses, recently posted a list of some of her favorite short stories. I looked 'em up and found links. Internet!

J D. Salinger: A Perfect Day for Bananafish

Philip Roth: The Conversion of the Jews

Raymond Carver: A Small, Good Thing

Amy Hempel: In the Cemetery Where Al Jolson is Buried

Tobias Wolff - Bullet in the Brain

Lorrie Moore: People Like That are the Only People Here

Ray Bradbury: The Veldt

Christopher Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Christopher Hitchens was a pretty reasonable dude - definitely no shill for either side of the aisle. Check it out if you like; this essay about Ayaan Hirsi Ali is particularly relevant today. Hitchens agrees with the same 95% of Hirsi Ali's rhetoric that I do, particularly regarding freedom of expression and human rights. But there's more - her stance on Islam is at times reactionary and frankly a bit paranoid, and she espouses some scary infringements on the rights of Muslims in the Netherlands and the US. It's rare to disagree so strongly with someone I consider this brilliant.

Then again, there's her observation that here in the west, we tend to project our liberal values where they don't necessarily belong. Is the following position worth considering, at least, before we dismiss it as racist?

"But I don’t even think that the trouble is Islam. The trouble is the West, because in the West there’s this notion that we are invincible and that everyone will modernize anyway, and that what we are seeing now in Muslim countries is a craving for respect. Or it’s poverty, or it’s caused by colonization.

The Western mind-set—that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away—is delusional."

Albert Einstein's extraordinary brain

The most striking feature of Albert Einstein's brain is that the sylvian fissure ends abruptly as it progresses posteriorly, running straight into the postcentral sulcus. This means he didn't have a parietal operculum: the brain region responsible for higher-order somatosensory processing. As a result, his inferior parietal lobule, responsible for abstract spatial reasoning, was proportionally enlarged.

To see this for yourself, look at figure 1c below. The sylvian fissure is the horizontal groove running from the front (right) of the brain towards the back. Notice how, about a third of the way back, it turns up sharply. The resulting vertical groove is the postcentral sulcus, often an entirely separate structure.

Compare that to a more typical brain, where the sylvian fissure is much longer (but, in this case, still contiguous with the postcentral sulcus:

I don't see why this would matter, or if it even stands up to familywise error correction, but Einstein also had a low neuron:glia ratio in his left angular gyrus, part of the temporoparietal junction, an area involved in understanding other people's mental states.

Lay article

Scholarly article (pdf)

Hay

We saw some of this stuff at a construction site on the walk back from dinner. I pointed it out, and the following conversation ensued:

Me: Hay.
Meaghan: What is it?
Me: *points*
Meaghan: Oh, hay!
Me: Heeeyyyy...

Dinosaur comics on justice

Because justice is meaningless when morality is relative and good is unquantifiable! Or something.