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. 

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."

Dinosaur comics on justice

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

Atheist could face a year in prison for disrupting school board's prayer

Article

We are quite literally at war, and the battle is nearly at my doorstep (Bartow, FL is two hours from where I grew up).

Scary stuff.

The circumcision debates

It's a little hard for me, as a Jew, to say it, but I completely agree with this. Along with some other comments on the thread, it effectively demolishes all of the arguments for circumcision except for one - and I can sum that one up in one word: Tradition.

I'm pretty sure my future son's grandparents are going to disagree, probably vehemently.

How I feel about religion today

Today, I was inspired by this, which sums up a substantial portion of my hopes, fears, beliefs, and ambitions. But I need to refine the last point.

If by "religion" you mean a sense of purpose that transcends the mundane, that instills in you a compelling desire to alleviate the suffering of your fellow man, and that binds you to your communities and families, then I support you.

If by "religion" you mean a rigid adherence to principles that have no foundation in reality, a dogma you use to justify the expression of your prejudices and fears, and a conduit for your thanatic impulses, then I do not support you.

We have the incredible gift of perception: we have senses that teach us the wonders of the universe, and brains that let us begin to make sense of the dizzying mystery of it all. I say we have these things, but perhaps we have been given them. If that's the case, then to shut our eyes and close our minds is the worst kind of ingratitude.

An atheist's rationale

From Reddit:

http://i.imgur.com/PxgR4.jpg

Easter eggs redubbed "spring spheres"

While the school administration's solution is clearly ridiculous, they're right at a very simple and fundamental level: religious ritual has no place in public schools. As innocuous as it might seem to the 25 Christian kids in the class, little Avi and little Ibrahim are going to feel pretty out of place in the corner, wondering silently to themselves what's wrong with them.

The effect of fear on beliefs

A new study in PLoS ONE shows that irrational beliefs are susceptible to clever manipulations of one's existential fears. The results are very cool, but sure to be controversial (if anyone notices).

Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution

Citation: Tracy JL, Hart J, Martens JP (2011) Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution. PLoS ONE 6(3): e17349. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017349

Abstract:
The present research examined the psychological motives underlying widespread support for intelligent design theory (IDT), a purportedly scientific theory that lacks any scientific evidence; and antagonism toward evolutionary theory (ET), a theory supported by a large body of scientific evidence. We tested whether these attitudes are influenced by IDT's provision of an explanation of life's origins that better addresses existential concerns than ET. In four studies, existential threat (induced via reminders of participants' own mortality) increased acceptance of IDT and/or rejection of ET, regardless of participants' religion, religiosity, educational background, or preexisting attitude toward evolution. Effects were reversed by teaching participants that naturalism can be a source of existential meaning (Study 4), and among natural-science students for whom ET may already provide existential meaning (Study 5). These reversals suggest that the effect of heightened mortality awareness on attitudes toward ET and IDT is due to a desire to find greater meaning and purpose in science when existential threats are activated.

A skeptic's appeal rings hollow

Contentious debates must be approached cautiously. When two irreconcilable views are presented, they should initially be treated as symmetric, as equal and opposite. Then, by careful consideration, the arguments can be dissected and their asymmetries revealed, their inconsistencies exposed, and their relative strengths and weaknesses brought to light. Perhaps the most important example of such a disagreement is the one that most sharply divides many societies, and has done so for as long as historians have been equipped to report on it. Broadly formulated, the question asks, “Is our observable world shaped by supernatural forces?” Deists say yes, atheists say no (agnostics shrug their shoulders). Spiritualists say yes, skeptics say no. According to the latest census¹, about 85% of the US population says yes. Michael Shermer says no.

Shermer² is a founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, and is one of the leading figures supporting a movement^6,7 against faith in the unobservable. The movement lobbies for public opinion by, sometimes antagonistically, citing empiricism as the ultimate source of knowledge, and reason as the only means of extrapolating new knowledge, and denigrating anything else. Personally, I don’t disagree with the idea, but I sometimes find its proponents needlessly caustic and suspiciously defensive in tone.

Shermer is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. In the February 2011 issue, Shermer’s column³ related an anecdote (red flag number one) involving Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (of Sherlock Holmes fame) and Harry Houdini, the famous illusionist. Conan Doyle, the story goes, was a spiritualist who was fond of séances and the like. He visited Houdini at his home, where Houdini demonstrated a magnificent illusion. At its conclusion, he said:

Sir Arthur, I have devoted a lot of time and thought to this illusion… I won’t tell you how it was done, but I can assure you it was pure trickery. I did it by perfectly normal means. I devised it to show you what can be done along these lines. Now, I beg of you, Sir Arthur, do not jump to the conclusion that certain things you see are necessarily “supernatural,” or the work of “spirits,” just because you cannot explain them…

Notice that Houdini did not reveal the mechanism of his illusion (red flag number two). He asked the credulous Conan Doyle to take it on faith that Houdini accomplished the feat by easily explicable, natural means. He probably did, but that’s not the point: Houdini tried to convince Conan Doyle to question spiritualism on the grounds of hearsay. There was no appeal to logic or empiricism here. Quite the opposite in fact: Conan Doyle was encouraged to disbelieve his eyes and reject his intuitions.

Back to my earlier remark about symmetry. A powerful argument for atheism must reveal the logical fallacy of a particular dogma, providing an analogous account that is sound, reasonable, and does not invoke the supernatural. Shermer’s argument is mirror-symmetric to the rhetoric he so fervently abhors; it reads like the recounting of a miracle. Just hold it up to a mirror and see:

Sir Michael, I have devoted a lot of time and thought to this miracle… I won’t tell you how it was done, but I can assure you it was pure divine omnipotence. I did it by perfectly divine means. I devised it to show you what can be done along these lines. Now, I beg of you, Sir Michael, do not jump to the conclusion that all things you see are necessarily “natural,” or can be explained by “physical laws,” just because the universe appears to operate according to principles…

I don’t entirely disagree with Shermer’s agenda, but I think he has done it a grave disservice with his overly emotional, logically flimsy argument. The appeal for reason sometimes sounds like an appeal for sanity itself as we confront discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, American Congressmen citing the story of Noah’s Ark when asked about energy policy⁴, the teaching of pseudoscience in schools⁵, and many other fruits of religious indoctrination.

That is not to say that faith has no place in our culture. Science has not provided us with answers to any of the most fundamental philosophical questions regarding the origins, purpose, and nature of our existence. Faith provides answers, and for many, this brings solace in the face of an uncertain and often harsh world. Faith can be a beautiful thing between consenting adults, but it has overstepped its bounds when it tries to dictate social policy. Our pleas for rationality in the structure of society must be carefully constructed and dispassionate if they are to be taken seriously and, hopefully, someday soon, succeed.

1.     http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0075.pdf

2.     http://www.michaelshermer.com/about-michael/

3.     http://www.michaelshermer.com/2011/02/houdinis-skeptical-advice/

4.     http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328366/John-Shimkus-Global-warming-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html

5.     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777413372910705.html

6.     http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

7.     http://richarddawkins.net/archive/all_content/latest

A Jewish rabbi's take on the Afterlife

This is brilliant - just watch the first 11 minutes for a crash course in Jewish philosophy.