Thursday, January 29, 2009
Philosophizing Science
Edge has a series of responses to the The New Republic article by Jerry Coyne that asks: "whether there is a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science." Here are samplings of a few of the responses:Daniel Everett:
Religion is philosophically incompatible with science. Open inquiry that allows the chips to fall where they may is incompatible with both the idea of 'god's revelation of truth' and religious hierarchies governing knowledge and its dissemination. I am an atheist. I believe that theology, which I hold an undergraduate degree in, is a waste of time. ...
While science should not pretend that revelation has anything to offer us, it should not forget that it can manifest its own forms of 'revelation'. When scientists believe that they are marching towards Truth in some platonic sense, they are behaving religiously, not scientifically. The belief in Truth, as Rorty cautioned, can become the scientist's god and when it does it involves no less superstition than any other god. And many scientists share a belief in oracles, special people whose words are somehow more valuable and more likely to reflect Truth than that of other people's.
Howard Gardner:
Of course, if you believe in the scientific method and the scientific enterprise, you will have little patience for belief in revelation (whatever that is). Still, all of us, even the most extreme rationalists, harbor contradictory beliefs in our minds and we somehow muddle through. For me, the important line in the sand is not between those who believe in religion/God and those who don't; it is between those who are tolerant of others' beliefs, so long as they dont interfere with one's own belief system, and those who will not tolerate those whose belief system is fundamentally different.
Coyne, who affirms Dawkins's approach, speaks of "theologians with a deistic bent" who inappropriately presume to "speak for all the faithful." The implication is that the "faithful" are the more authentically religious and the theologians are an aberration. This seems unfair to me. The great unwashed masses of these "faithful" should be juxtaposed with the great masses of people who "believe" in science but are not professionals. Most Americans—and the rest of the world, for that matter— are attached to both iPods and a belief that medical science is their best hope when they are sick. They "believe" in science. What do you suppose "science" would look like, were it defined by these "believers"? The physics would be Aristotelian; astrology and aliens would accepted as real; General Relativity would be unknown; quantum mechanics would be perceived as a way to influence the world with your mind. And yet all of these people would have had far more education in science than the typical religious believer has in theology. Science as "lived and practiced by real people" is quite different than the science promoted by the intellectuals in this conversation.
Kenneth R. Miller (author of Only a Theory reviewed by Coyne in his article):
[Coyne's] right on one score, obviously. That is that certain religious claims, including the age of the earth, a global worldwide flood, and the simultaneous creation of all living things are empirical in nature. As such, they can be tested scientifically, and these particular claims are clearly false. Claims of demonstrative miracles in the past, such as the virgin birth or the resurrection cannot be tested empirically, because there are no data from which to work. On such claims, science has nothing to say one way or the other. Coyne's complaint on such things, paradoxically, is that they must not have happened because there is no scientific explanation for them. That amounts, in essence, to saying that these things could not have happened because they would be miracles. Well, that's exactly what most Christians take them for, so Coyne's only real argument is an a priori assumption that miracles cannot happen. Make that assumption, and miracles are nonsense. But it is an assumption nonetheless, something that Coyne fails to see.
How, then, should we take his claim that scientists who profess religious faith are akin to adulterers? An adulterer, of course, is one who has taken the marriage vow of faithfulness and exclusivity, and then broken that vow to have sex with another. Have scientists who profess faith broken some vow of philosophical naturalism that is implicit in the profession?
I, for one, don't remember any such vow in my training, my PhD exam, or my tenure review—although perhaps things work a little differently at the University of Chicago.
But my favorite of the responses was this:
Lawrence Krauss:
There is too much ink spent worrying about this question. Religion is simply irrelevant to science, and whether or not science contradicts religion may be of interest to theologians but it simply doesn't matter to scientists. What matters are the important questions science is dealing with, from the origin and future of the universe to the origin and future of life.
All this talk about science and religion gives the wrong impression, as it suggests reconciling them or not reconciling them is a big issue... it isn't. As I once put it to theologians at a meeting at the Vatican: theologians have to listen to scientists, because if they want to try to create a consistent theology (and while I have opinions about whether this is possible, but my opinions about this are neither particularly important nor informed) they at least need to know how the world works. But scientists don't have to listen to theologians, because it has no effect whatsoever on the scientific process.
Yes, but...
If we are to continue to conduct the scientific enterprise on its present scale it depends, if not on the active support, at least the acquiescence of the general taxpaying population. If the polls are to be believed, the greater part of that population are religious to some degree. Should they be persuaded by the more fundamental of their brethren that science is some sort of elitist conspiracy that needs to be brought to heel by the faithful then it would not be as irrelevant as Krauss believes. Otherwise, he is right.
Are we to be tolerant to those that say my religion tells me to strap a bomb to myself and blow up a bus? Are we to be tolerant to those that say, slavery is in according to my religion, because God gave us the rules how to do it? Are we to be tolerant to those that say my religion supports the concept of genocide? Are we to be tolerant to those who say, my religion says my child will be cured by God, and no medicine is required, and when they child dies, are we to be tolerant of their belief it was God’s will?
Those that want to merge religion with science can never tell the story of what that means. Did God allow uncontrolled evolution for 4.5 billion years, meteorites to strike the earth, ice ages and near global extinction, and then on October 15, 4004 B.C. at 9.am in the morning, pick 2 creatures to embody with souls? Create a set of rules that no creature could follow? Create a hell to throw them in? Create a heaven to reward the good and faithful servants? Was it that prior to October 15, 4004 B.C., we didn’t need heaven and hell?
To me the question is, if religion and science are compatible, what is religions’ story?
: 1:15 PM I think those people are interferring with my belief system that their right to believe, like their right to swing their arm, ends at the tip of anyone else's nose.
To me the question is, if religion and science are compatible, what is religions’ story?
There's somewhere between 5 and 6 billion religious believers in the world and I'd estimate that there's between 5 and 6 billion answers to your question. The issue never was, as Miller said, whether all religions can be made compatible with science ... it's whether any can.
<< Home
