Monday, November 02, 2009
Philosophy, Science and Law
Michael Ruse has a piece in the Guardian that is not very good. Russell Blackford neatly (and humorously) deconstructs it.But Russell, himself a (non-American) lawyer, as well as a philosopher, defers to Jerrry Coyne on one point that at least needs expanding on. According to Russell, Ruse's "worst howler" was when he said this:
If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion? The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?Russell quotes Coyne with approval:
[L]ots of things that we teach students make them question not only their faith, but their fundamental values. This is GOOD. Questioning your principles is one of the main aims of education, as Socrates knew well. As biology teachers, our job is to teach evolution, for that is the true account of the history of life. If that account leads some people to question or leave their faith, that's just too bad. But it's not the same thing as telling students that there is no god.Quite true. As I have pointed out before, any "spillover effect" the teaching of evolution may have on any (or all) religious belief is not unconstitutional. There is a clear secular purpose to teaching our best scientific understanding of biology, and if that causes students to question their religious belief, that's too bad as far as the Constitution goes.
But there is a subtle (perhaps obscure, due to Ruse's poor formulation) difference between what Ruse said and what Coyne and (by extension) Russell are saying. Ruse was focusing on the proposition that the "new atheists" are claiming that Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity (and, presumably, other Abrahamic religions, among others).
It is quite one thing to say that religion has to take its chances with the teaching of science and quite another to teach that science is incompatible with religion. To teach the latter is most definitely to teach that there is no god -- at least as long as we want to teach that science is factual, as opposed to just another philosophy.
There is a conundrum as long as Coyne, et al. want to maintain that science and religion are incompatible: why should the institutions of science abandon the position that science and religion are conceptually compatible if evolution is not the equivalent of atheism; why should the First Amendment not bar the teaching of evolution if science and religion are conceptually incompatible?
.
Labels: Accommodationism Incompatiblism
Comments:
<< Home
If that logic holds, then the teaching of science would be barred, not the teaching of evolution which is just one of many aspects of science that contradict some literal interpretations of the Bible.
The issue is not evolution, but scepticism which is an inherent virtue in science and can be logically problematic if held in conjunction with unquestioning religious belief.
Of course, the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas ruled against state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution, concluding that they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion. States may not alter the curriculum to conform to the beliefs of particular religious sects. Good luck with trying to ban science teaching.
The issue is not evolution, but scepticism which is an inherent virtue in science and can be logically problematic if held in conjunction with unquestioning religious belief.
Of course, the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas ruled against state laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution, concluding that they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits state aid to religion. States may not alter the curriculum to conform to the beliefs of particular religious sects. Good luck with trying to ban science teaching.
This is a half-formed thought, so be kind. How about if the question is not Is religious belief incompatible with evolution (or science in general)? but rather Are certain religious claims about the world/universe (e.g., age of the earth; the impossibility of evolving certain structures, etc.) incompatible with evolution (or science in general)?
Does the shift in the focus of the question have any implications for the Constitutional issue?
Does the shift in the focus of the question have any implications for the Constitutional issue?
then the teaching of science would be barred ...
Yes, I just used evolution as an example because it is what Ruse used.
States may not alter the curriculum to conform to the beliefs of particular religious sects.
But neither can they teach that religion is false. If, as Coyne claims (elsewhere if not here) that atheism is scientific (and, necessarily, vice versa), teaching it as factual (instead of one philosophy/theology out of many) amounts to the government taking a position that religion is false.
Does the shift in the focus of the question have any implications for the Constitutional issue?
Yes, but you have to be careful, as as James Corbett discovered.
The statement that "creation science is wrong about the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth" is probably okay. The statement that creationism and/or religion are false is not.
Yes, I just used evolution as an example because it is what Ruse used.
States may not alter the curriculum to conform to the beliefs of particular religious sects.
But neither can they teach that religion is false. If, as Coyne claims (elsewhere if not here) that atheism is scientific (and, necessarily, vice versa), teaching it as factual (instead of one philosophy/theology out of many) amounts to the government taking a position that religion is false.
Does the shift in the focus of the question have any implications for the Constitutional issue?
Yes, but you have to be careful, as as James Corbett discovered.
The statement that "creation science is wrong about the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth" is probably okay. The statement that creationism and/or religion are false is not.
<< Home
