Since I began writing this humble little blog I have written about my Catholicism on two occasions.
When I first wrote about my mass-attending ways back in October, Dr. A of R.E.S.E.A.R.C.H.E.R.S. left the following comment:
I imagine it is quite conflicting for you Dr Isis to be a catholic scientist and I hope that you will post more on this topic to help your readers understand.I made a note in my journal of this as a topic that I wanted to write about (yes, I keep a blogging journal. And yes, the topics are sorted. I am just that hardcore), but life seemed to get away from me. Then, when I wrote most recently. commenter Ewan of Brain Glucose wrote the following in reply:
Serious question: assuming that one believes that it is not possible to both believe in the scientific method and also adhere to organised religion (either in general or Catholicism specifically) - how does one note and discuss that without being deemed offensive (again, either in general or specifically here)?So I figure tonight, while I'm up with a little insomnia and chatting with a former grad school colleague who is having contractions, why not write a little about the role my faith plays in my science (or, my science plays in my faith?).
Figure 1: What Totally Hot Science Would Jesus Do (WTHSWJD)? Is it blasphemous to Photoshop Jesus? I think his little safety glasses are adorable and I give myself an "A+" for effort. And hotness. Actually, I give myself an "A++" for hotness. I think I have been watching far too much You Suck at Photoshop. I am going to end this caption before it becomes a paragraph.
Initially, when I read Dr. A's comment months ago, I thought that she might be referring to the ethical implications that come with being a Catholic scientist. Trust me, there are many. While there are still some moral issues that I struggle with (as I imagine many moderate/liberal Catholics do) I have concerns over things like embryonic stem cell research. This really not been a daily issue that I have had to deal with professionally because I don't do this type of research. I try not to work on Sundays and, when I have to, I know where every mass in town is.
But, this doesn't mean that my science is not affected daily by my Catholicism. Most specifically, my faith influences how we conduct experiments with human research volunteers. I believe very strongly in the dignity of the human person (for an interesting read, see Paul VI's Dignitatis Humanae and the new instructions on Dignitas Personae. I think my fair atheist friends will be especially interested in Dignitatis Humanae.) and I try to conduct my work in a way that respects the personhood of those we collect data from. This is not to say that I believe that one must be Catholic in order to respect individual autonomy and conduct ethical research. I don't believe that being an atheist provides carte blanche to behave like an ass. However, it would be dishonest for me to claim that my personal motivations do not stem directly from religious principle.
Along the same vein, I try to treat those that I work with with charity and love. Pope John XXIII wriote, "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" (In the necessary, unity, in the uncertain, liberty, in everything, charity). While I occasionally lose my junk over things like dishes left in the sink, I also think it is important to create an environment where the needs of the individual are valued as much as the needs of the enterprise. Have I been successful? I'm trying. I really am.
But, it was Ewan's comment that most intrigued me -- the question of whether it is possible to adhere to an organized religion and still value analytical science. In addition, how does one discuss the intersection of the two without being offensive. The answer is, I plain ole don't know because I have never seen science and faith as being exclusive. There is a big difference between Catholicism and evangelical Christianity, especially when it comes to things like evolution. As a scientist I conduct research the same way everyone else does (or, so I assume), guided by the scientific method. I attempt to interpret my data using my current knowledge of physiology, and I don't think I have ever turned to I Thessalonians for information on endothelial-mediated vasodilation. Besides, everyone knows that all of the hot cardiovascular stuff is in I Corinthians.
I simply don't see my science guided by my faith, except in as much as my life is guided by my faith. I believe it is terrible hubris to say that there must be a God because there are things that I cannot understand or that appear mystical. On the other hand, I think it is an equal display of hubris to contend that, because I can take a physiological phenomenon and apply a mathematical construct to it, there must be no God. And thusly, I am perfectly content to spend my days trying to uncover physiological mysteries while being simultaneously content spending Sundays pondering that I may never fully understand the miracle of transsubstantiation.
Initially, when I read Dr. A's comment months ago, I thought that she might be referring to the ethical implications that come with being a Catholic scientist. Trust me, there are many. While there are still some moral issues that I struggle with (as I imagine many moderate/liberal Catholics do) I have concerns over things like embryonic stem cell research. This really not been a daily issue that I have had to deal with professionally because I don't do this type of research. I try not to work on Sundays and, when I have to, I know where every mass in town is.
But, this doesn't mean that my science is not affected daily by my Catholicism. Most specifically, my faith influences how we conduct experiments with human research volunteers. I believe very strongly in the dignity of the human person (for an interesting read, see Paul VI's Dignitatis Humanae and the new instructions on Dignitas Personae. I think my fair atheist friends will be especially interested in Dignitatis Humanae.) and I try to conduct my work in a way that respects the personhood of those we collect data from. This is not to say that I believe that one must be Catholic in order to respect individual autonomy and conduct ethical research. I don't believe that being an atheist provides carte blanche to behave like an ass. However, it would be dishonest for me to claim that my personal motivations do not stem directly from religious principle.
Along the same vein, I try to treat those that I work with with charity and love. Pope John XXIII wriote, "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" (In the necessary, unity, in the uncertain, liberty, in everything, charity). While I occasionally lose my junk over things like dishes left in the sink, I also think it is important to create an environment where the needs of the individual are valued as much as the needs of the enterprise. Have I been successful? I'm trying. I really am.
But, it was Ewan's comment that most intrigued me -- the question of whether it is possible to adhere to an organized religion and still value analytical science. In addition, how does one discuss the intersection of the two without being offensive. The answer is, I plain ole don't know because I have never seen science and faith as being exclusive. There is a big difference between Catholicism and evangelical Christianity, especially when it comes to things like evolution. As a scientist I conduct research the same way everyone else does (or, so I assume), guided by the scientific method. I attempt to interpret my data using my current knowledge of physiology, and I don't think I have ever turned to I Thessalonians for information on endothelial-mediated vasodilation. Besides, everyone knows that all of the hot cardiovascular stuff is in I Corinthians.
I simply don't see my science guided by my faith, except in as much as my life is guided by my faith. I believe it is terrible hubris to say that there must be a God because there are things that I cannot understand or that appear mystical. On the other hand, I think it is an equal display of hubris to contend that, because I can take a physiological phenomenon and apply a mathematical construct to it, there must be no God. And thusly, I am perfectly content to spend my days trying to uncover physiological mysteries while being simultaneously content spending Sundays pondering that I may never fully understand the miracle of transsubstantiation.
Education & Careers
Politics
Comments
Just curious-- Have you ever taken the "I wonder how and why X happens?" approach from your science and applied it to your faith? In other words, while I can understand the notion of your faith guiding your life (and thus, in part your science), I am more interested in the extent to which your science guides your life (and thus, potentially, your faith).
I agree with, or at least understand, your last paragraph. But I am, as I have said, curious: while the mathematical constructs do not and cannot prove there is no god (proving negatives and all that), do you basically give Occam Sundays off? Compared to your faith, how much does your science inform your life? Could you, subjectively, compare the two?
Posted by: Anon | February 11, 2009 8:01 AM
Until I started reading Scienceblogs I never knew anyone would view religion and science as mutually exclusive.
My father was a scientist, a Roman Catholic, and he thought Charles Darwin was the greatest man who ever lived!
I think he would have argued that given a good intellect, free will and the parable of the talents, we have an obligation to discover the universe around us.
Posted by: R E G | February 11, 2009 8:19 AM
Speaking from a non-organized religion person, I don't understand why you (and others) don't see a conflict between your science and your religion. What I see is that organized religion (and faith) do not stand up to the rigors of the scientific method. And if you agree to let that pass... Why do you get to pick and choose where the scientific method is valid?
Thank you for your lovely thoughts about preserving "the dignity of the human person".
Posted by: Kate | February 11, 2009 8:22 AM
I was brought up in an agnostic family and only recently became Catholic so I can see where they are coming from. I have also some scientific background (if I studied today I would be past BSc and on my way to writing the master's thesis) and for me it was simply inconceivable that I could have faith. Well, now I have it, thanks to a miracle or perhaps minuscule stroke, and I still think that the world must be explainable without resorting to the deity of any kind, otherwise we wouldn't be free to believe in God or not.
I'm looking forward towards finishing my environmental biology studies as soon as I can afford it and I don't foresee any problems stemming from my newly acquired faith. After all, His kingdom is not of this world.
Posted by: Wojciech Setlak | February 11, 2009 8:22 AM
"..because I have never seen science and faith as being exclusive. "
I completely agree with this, and I don't consider myself a religious person. I know a few people who are very religious and are in science (a very dear friend and my supervisor come to mind). I asked my friend about how she felt about this very topic and she said "I don't think of them as separate. I believe they both come together at some point, and that's why I enjoy both: so I can help find that commonality".
Very enlightening!
Posted by: Mrs. CH | February 11, 2009 8:31 AM
I think the reason why this issue is always so amorphous is because it entirely depends on how the individual views their religion. For instance, those who believe the story of Noah and the Arc in a literal sense could not possibly study evolution or even entomology (several hundred thousand pairs of beetles on the arc would have been pretty gross). However, everyone's interpretation of their primary religious text is different and the people who I have met in science who identify with a faith tend to be those who follow the principals of a religion, without adhering blindly to the letter of their faith. Most religious texts (the bible for certain) are pretty fucked up on close read and are often wildly anti-female. Obviously, many church-goers are content to gloss over the nastier bits and take away the charitable ideals as their fundamentals. While I am sure they exist, I think one would be hard-pressed to find people in non-medically-related fields of life-science who follow a strict interpretation of almost any religion. Outside of that, it becomes more difficult to reconcile the the stauncher tenents of biology and religion. Since religious beliefs are so individual, it is very difficult to paint with a broad brush how One (broad sense) is supposed to balance their religion and science, because that balance is as personal as each person's belief system. If each opposing camp can only attack stereotypes, then everyone can claim to "not believe that things work THAT way" and we talk in circles. I don't believe that I would be able to effectively work in the field I do and have religious convictions, but that is how I see things and as long as (any) religion doesn't leak into the public school system or influence government policy (which are whole different issues), I don't care who people talk to when they turn off their lights.
Posted by: prof-like substance | February 11, 2009 8:39 AM
I'm not a religious person, but the attitude of some who are with whom I've discussed this would be one of polite indifference. They don't see a conflict, and they have little or no interest in responding either to polite insistence that they should subject their beliefs to scientific scrutiny or to shrill screechings that they're illogical and blinkered idiots.
And the last thing they would do is use their beliefs to direct science.
This reality is often ignored, in my opinion.
Posted by: Scott Belyea | February 11, 2009 8:47 AM
Thanks for articulating how something that's critical to your research (namely working with human persons) is improved by thoughtful exercises of your religious principles.
Posted by: Academic | February 11, 2009 8:52 AM
Thanks for bringing up a notoriously touchy subject. I also struggle with this, having been raised Catholic but moved to more tooth-fairy agnostic.
While I agree with your statement above, I believe you are misrepresenting the viewpoint of the serious (read: thoughtful) atheist. True, the statement "there is no God" can not be defended scientifically. But invoking a singular (or tripartite), human-like divine being to explain all of the unknown, "miraculous" events (past, present and future)? This is not the simplest model based on current evidence, and isn't that what science is about? Building models based on evidence?
Posted by: tim | February 11, 2009 9:01 AM
Re: #6
I think sometimes people talking about the scientific problems of stories in the Bible forget that it wasn't meant as a scientific text. For example, when describing the bowls in the temple as having a circumference that was 3 times the diameter, I don't write off the whole chapter because they left off the .14159265358979...
Thank you for a thoughtful post, Isis.
Posted by: anon | February 11, 2009 9:11 AM
Too late.
Posted by: Orac | February 11, 2009 9:27 AM
Not Catholic here, but definitely religious. Having been raised by a scientist dad who's also very religious, I've never seen a conflict between science and religion.
To me, both science and religion are means for seeking truth. No religion is composed of 100% truth, but then, one could say the same thing about science. Most religious traditions provide a way of seeking missing truths.
An analogy I used when talking about this with my teenagers: there are many ways you can describe the position of a point in space; the most common being Cartesian coordinates and polar coordinates. You can convert between the two, though it's a royal PITA. Which coordinate system is best to describe reality? Depends on the situation at hand. Fighter pilot describing position of enemy planes? Polar coordinates. Laying out foundation lines for new construction? Cartesian is better. Likewise, which method you use to seek and find truth depends on the specific truth you are seeking.
To poster #3: Why do I get to pick and choose when the scientific method is valid? I'm not sure, but every single person I've ever met does. Do you know anyone who uses the scientific method to choose what flavor of ice cream to buy or decide what to make for dinner? And just how many people have you met who chose their life partner that way? (I certainly didn't, but my marriage has lasted 18 relatively happy years--so far.) Do you apply the scientific method to decide whether or not to love your children or your siblings or your parents?
If you think that every decision in life can be decided by the scientific method, you are wrong.
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | February 11, 2009 9:35 AM
You're touching on the whole Enlightenment issue, which happened in Europe but hardly touched America (which had other fish to fry). In Europe, the Enlightenment led to Christians (as most folk were) accepting that the way the world worked (science if you like) was not always exactly as the Bible or literalist priests said, and they calmly accepted that when doing science they would do science, but on Sundays and in church they would operate to a different set of rules, and that their moral precepts would come from their religion. They reconciled these different world views according to individual taste, either by ignoring any dissonance or trying to explain it away with a bit of hand-waving.
These days, many European Christians who are also scientists simply ignore the dissonance; they do not feel obligated to fit everything into one framework.
One of the key features of the American scene is the vigour of fundamentalists with a literal view of the Bible and a blind insistence on its exclusive veracity. That is simply not the approach taken by most European Christians.
However, your statement:
gives me pause. The wafers and wine remain vegetable-based products, surely transubstantiation can only be understand by a mature mind as a metaphor or symbol? To believe that the wafer is literally the flesh of Jesus or the wine his blood is completely absurd and (I think) distasteful. Taking the eucharist is a statement of identity with the godhead and the church. This is not a miracle; it is part of the ritual of the mass. It is not literal; observation tells you that. If you're thinking "well, it's a miracle that it's literally the flesh of Jesus yet its form is unchanged" it's time to think again - then the miracle is of people swallowing this crazy talk!I'm a whole-hearted atheist (why? because there ain't no gods, that's why), but I strongly believe that (a) we need to live together on this small planet, (b) people in general have evolved to be social rather than rational, (c) if religion is important to a person, then it is better that they have inconsistent beliefs than that they be unhappy, provided they do their science scientifically (if they're a scientist!) and generally let their religion take them to a more moral life (not use it for justifying hatred or nastiness).
Posted by: Sam C | February 11, 2009 9:39 AM
RE #10
Um, I was referring more to the fact that if ALL life descended from the ARC, then there would have to have been a WHOLE helluva lot of insects on the arc and at least about a million beetles alone. We're not talking decimal places, we're talking a pretty crawly 40 days and nights.
Posted by: prof-like substance | February 11, 2009 9:44 AM
Hi UnlikelyGrad,
Can you explain how religion is a means for seeking truth? Does it have some kind of procedure that allows you to verify or disprove religious claims? Is there a religious method?
Posted by: foolfodder | February 11, 2009 10:03 AM
Thank you to all of you for your thoughtful comments so far. I am intrigued by the comments that following a line of thinking similar to this:
I say this as a dedicated scientist in every sense of the word, but must everything be testable by the scientific method to be valid? For example, I love my son but this is not somehthing that can not be quantified nor can the null hypothesis "Dr. Isis does not love her son" be tested. If someone can reasonably design an experiment that tests the null hypothesis "there is no God," I will perform it and accept the results. Otherwise, this is all a big, fat, flammable strawman (see my thoughts on Hubris).
I reject the argument "it is not the simplest explanation" as a reason for why atheism is the valid alternative. I am currently working on a particular phenomenon that was thought to exist -- one that is very contrary to the conventional thinking and some of the earliest arguments against our ideas were that they were not the simplest explanation. Occam's razor can be useful, but if you don't watch it will cut you.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | February 11, 2009 10:13 AM
Testability of Religion:
Ok - you can't test "There is (no) God". But you can test stories from the bible. The arc - not possible as written. The creation - not scientifically possible as written. The resurrection - not scientifically possible as written. Pillars of salt? Water into wine?
Ok - you may say that it's analogy - one should just take the meaning from the story, but not the actual true story. Except - the religious people only do this when they want to. And when the story fits their needs - oh then it's true.
Why would you buy into a system that makes you interpret it and not as it is written?
Morals can be found outside of religion. People don't need for the church to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
Posted by: Kate | February 11, 2009 10:30 AM
One specific conflict that I have noticed between religion and science is the justified demand by women scientists, such as Isis, to be equal to men in every respect when in academia, while surrendering quietly to male chauvinism when in the Catholic church.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | February 11, 2009 10:30 AM
Foolfodder,
As I mentioned in my previous comment, science and religion are used to determine different sorts of truth. I would not rely on religion to tell me whether a particular drug was effective against cancer, for example. By the same token, I generally don't rely on science to make decisions about interpersonal behavior, questions like, say, Should I Leave My Husband--there are far too many variables involved in a decision like that for a person to make a choice based on others' "experiments".
Is there a religious method? I think there is; I would iterate it thus:
(1) Research "literature" (whatever religious writings belong to your faith)
(2) Pray for guidance as to how to apply it to your life
(3) Do what you decide is right
(4) If it is right, you will feel peace. If it isn't, you won't, and you'll know that you should choose a different behavior next time. Repeat steps 1-3.
I could give examples of how I've applied this, but they are very personal, and you might get bored. :-)
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | February 11, 2009 10:39 AM
As an activist (anti-racist, feminist, and radical atheist) who is also an ex-Catholic (went to catholic school, descendant from a long line of priests and nuns .... aunts and uncles, of course) I would like to step up and vouch for the very real possibility that a person can be a Catholic and a Scientist at the same time with very little, if any, conflict. (As Isis implies, this may depend a little on exactly what one is doing in science.) I also appreciate the statement that while Isis may receive some of her ethical/moral guidance from her faith, that it is not the case that one must get such guidance from faith.
The distinction between catholics and fundies is huge, in the US, probably bigger than the distinction between your average catholic and your average agnostic/atheist, in most areas.
Of course, being an idol is a violation of the second commandment, maybe. That could explain all the lightning strikes in the vicinity of Isis' home and laboratory...
Posted by: Greg Laden/Name Withheld | February 11, 2009 10:40 AM
Isis, "I simply don't see my (!!!) science guided by my faith". A more interesting question for me, what about science outside yours, is ALL science unaffected by religion? What about history and archeology during Jesus' time? Isn't that part of science? What about god, miracles and saints, the soul (and of course ensoulment), can't evidence, analysis and logic be honestly applied to that?
"There is a big difference between Catholicism and evangelical Christianity", the difference being the set of arbitrary believes each one holds dear. By the way, I was raised a catholic and as a child I felt inspired by Mat 22:37 "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." That probably backfired.
Sam C: "(c) if religion is important to a person, then it is better that they have inconsistent beliefs ..." I'm also OK with that, but I assume if somebody expresses their believes in a blog they should expect to be called out (respectfully) about dissonances in their reasoning. I'll gladly receive my dues. Also, most religious people is not completely happy unless everybody else behaves as they expect (and make it law if they can). I recognize this may not be the case among readers of this blog, which does not prevent the vatican to use them.
Cheers,
Posted by: Im curious | February 11, 2009 10:44 AM
How Catholic are you? Do you actually believe that a virgin female mammal gave birth? To a male offspring? Do you actually believe in the resurrection? How exactly would one person's horrendous death be able to remediate the sins of other people? Do you believe that the carbohydrate wafer given as Eucharist is truly (but not materially, that would be silly) the flesh of Jesus H. Christ? Are you OK with the Vatican having placed Galileo's books on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum for several centuries? Are you OK with even the concept of a list of banned books? With the Vatican having excommunicated St. George Jackson Mivart? Do you really think that the Vatican's support for evolution hasn't been a bit equivocal? Do you think it is acceptable that the Vatican has not corrected or disciplined Maputo Archbishop Francisco Chimoio, head of the Holy Roman Catholic Church in Mozambique, for publicly stating in 2007 that condoms shipped to Africa from Europe were pre-infected with HIV? Do you really believe that such leadership could have even a passing acquaintance with any true God?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 11, 2009 10:49 AM
Newsflash: people are good at fooling themselves and compartmentalizing their minds.
Posted by: Alex Besogonov | February 11, 2009 10:51 AM
Can those who believe the literal truth of virgin birth study biology? Can those who believe in the literal truth of walking on water study fluid dynamics? Can those who believe in the literal multiplication of loaves and fishes study physics?
I guess this is what has me confused about those who say there is no conflict between religion and science. Clearly, for certain phenomena, there is a conflict -- that's why we use the term "miracle". It seems to me that, to be a consistent scientists, one simply can't believe in the possibility of miracles, or else all scientific explanations become suspect, because any finding could be the result of a miracle.
Posted by: Tulse | February 11, 2009 10:52 AM
I was under the impression that love can be tested, and even influenced using science.
Posted by: jake | February 11, 2009 10:53 AM
Isis, "If someone can reasonably design an experiment that tests the null hypothesis "there is no God," I will perform it and accept the results."
For thousands of years the hypothesis was "there is a God" which has this set of properties (you name it, and a lot of people died and suffer for them and keep doing it). None (!) of them resisted honest close inspection, except of course the untestable claims. There is nothing to conclude there, at least provisionally?
Cheers,
Posted by: Im curious | February 11, 2009 10:57 AM
The obvious conflict between science and religion is that science requires us to accept things based only on empirical evidence. Religion often requires us to accept things based on faith, even in the absence of and sometimes in contradiction to the empirical evidence.
Just as obviously, many people have no difficulty managing to apply science to some questions, and faith to others, and rarely if ever perceive a conflict. I think that's pretty straightforward if one's religious views are generally confined to things that are beyond scientific investigation, either in principle or simply because of current practical limitations. If one believes there is a God somewhere, who perhaps interacts with our minds but rarely if ever acts overtly in our material world, there's little opportunity for conflict.
However, if one believes transsubstantiation includes some sort of physical transformation, or if one believes in a literal version of Noah's ark, there is indeed a conflict. According to the scientific method, one should not believe those things, because they are unsupported and contradicted by empirical evidence, respectively.
That leads to the issue of choosing which empiric 'facts' to accept based on a scientific approach, and which to accept based on a faith-based approach. If knowledge through faith is considered to trump empiric evidence, I think that's a clear breach of scientific principles. Whether that's wrong per se is another matter.
Posted by: qetzal | February 11, 2009 10:58 AM
How Catholic are you? Do you actually believe that a virgin female mammal gave birth? To a male offspring?
Good grief. This is certainly possible, even with current technology. Take a virgin female, subject her to artificial insemination. Do this with a large number of virgins and you will probably end up with approximately 50% male offspring.
If we can't do it, why can't a supreme being? (As a side note, I imagine that AI accomplished via Holy Spirit--whatever that means--is less invasive than the procedure you'd undergo at most fertility doctors nowadays.)
To me, "miracle" means: we don't understand it with our current scientific knowledge. But that may change in the future--in which case it will no longer seem miraculous.
Resurrection? We do that to a limited extent already. Haven't you ever heard of people whose heart stopped but were later revived? The greater our medical knowledge, the longer people will be able to be "dead" and then revived...
Walking on water? Can't do that yet. But we do have hovercraft that float above water. Hover-shoes, anyone?
Ascension into heaven? Sounds like a jet pack to me.
Multiplication of loaves and fishes? Sorry, I have no guesses as to how that was done, but they do it in science fiction all the time (replicators). :-) Maybe some day?
Like I said, with the right technology, a lot of things are possible. A being who knows everything would be able to manipulate events to advantage. It's no surprise that, when people in isolated areas met more-technologically-advanced Eurasians for the first time, they viewed them as gods...
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | February 11, 2009 11:15 AM
Hi UnlikelyGrad, thanks for the reply. I don't think that you've used religion to arrive at truth though in that example. You've used it to help you make a decision.
P.s. Plus, wouldn't you be better served by replacing step (1) with 'Research "literature" (whatever writings are relevant to the decision)' and (2) with 'Think about how to apply it to your life'? :)
Posted by: foolfodder | February 11, 2009 11:16 AM
Haaahaahaha! Glad cognitive dissonance works for ya!
Posted by: kyuss | February 11, 2009 11:25 AM
Are you serious, UnlikelyGrad? Do you think that Jesus walked on water using technology? Do you think the virgin birth happened via technology? If so, why on earth should anyone worship Jesus any more than, say, Steve Jobs? If Jesus was resurrected using technology, that would be extremely cool, and I'd be extremely impressed with a being who had that kind of technology, but I sure as heck wouldn't worship them.
Your position seems to be that there simply isn't anything supernatural. I think that's the most scientifically supportable position, but it does mean that you've pretty much denied what people usually mean by religious belief.
Posted by: Tulse | February 11, 2009 11:28 AM
You do not *just* accept God, you are Catholic and presumably accept that the bible as written is God's word.
God may not be a testable hypothesis but the bible makes many, for example, the story of Genesis is testable. You can then just cop out by saying it is to be taken figuratively but now you have to decide what components of 'God's Word' are to be taken figuratively and which are to be taken literally.
While the Catholic Church may accept evolution (tenatively), it also accepts a virgin birth, miracles that have occured countless times, just so many instances of supernatural intervention on the earth. Things that are incompatible with a scientific mind.
In this case, if you have to throw out so many tenants of Catholicism. What is the point of being Catholic at all?
Posted by: Jon | February 11, 2009 11:29 AM
Could I just point out that:
1) The catholic faith taught to me was not a LITERAL interpretation of the bible, but a CONTEXTUAL one. That means that we interperet it in the context of the times it was written.
2) Why is believing in a god, and believing, completely based on faith, at conflict with scientific method and rigor? What if there is no evidence that we can test in the lab? And then? How does this disprove that a God could exist?
3) Being a practising catholic, and believing in a god does not equate to: 'surrendering quietly to male chauvinism when in the Catholic church'.
GRrrrr
Posted by: pumpkinesque | February 11, 2009 11:34 AM
Not to mention cut NOMA off at the knees. If everything is natural, then from whence come the separate magisteria?
Posted by: MartinM | February 11, 2009 11:41 AM
"...but must everything be testable by the scientific method to be valid? I love my son ..."
It seems to me there are two viewpoints on this. One is to say, we don't yet know (and may never, maybe we just aren't smart enough) the precise mechanisms by which this occurs, but having come from a long line of primates whose offspring are slow to mature to the point of self-sufficiency, and thus require lots of parental care, must have something to do with it. Perhaps those who did not feel this emotional driver as strongly were less apt to pass on genetic characteristics which influence it?
The other is to say, I don't understand love, therefore it is a miracle, therefore there must be a god, and coincidentally it is the one I was brought up to believe in, rather than thousands of other fictitious ones. (No doubt I am not doing this point of view justice since it has never made much sense to me, although I admit that some smarter people than myself seem to accept it.)
Anyway, to some of us there is nothing than falls outside the scope of the scientific method - just things that we don't understand yet because we haven't assembled enough data or done enough tests or because it takes more intelligence than we have to figure them out. Yes, there are probably things that we (humans) will never get data on or be smart enough to figure out. That just means we should say, "I don't know," not "god did it."
Posted by: JimV | February 11, 2009 11:46 AM
To be blunt, that is nonsense. Love motivates people to behave in certain ways. There are all sorts of evidence that can be presented to whether or not one person loves another, and even to what degree, as measured against other motivations in life. It is done all the time in family courts throughout the nation, during divorce and custody proceedings.
Some gods may choose to keep themselves hidden. And given other assumptions about their nature, it is indeed impossible to tell whether gods of that sort exist. However, assuming a god a) who wants every human to know that he exists, and b) who has the power to reveal himself, the simple test is this: does every human have that knowledge? If not, there is no such god. The simple fact that religious believers struggle against is that there is no conceptual problem in a god revealing himself in a way that eliminates this dispute.
Posted by: Russell | February 11, 2009 11:58 AM
Two quick responses:
"The resurrection - not scientifically possible as written."
Err... that's the definition of a miracle. You can chose to believe in it or not, but because something scientifically impossible doesn't mean it's impossible. It's only impossible if there's no such thing as miracles, which is not a question testable by science by definition.
"You can then just cop out by saying it is to be taken figuratively but now you have to decide what components of 'God's Word' are to be taken figuratively and which are to be taken literally."
Well sure. In Feynman's The Character of Physical Law he talks in detail about the quantum double slit experiment, and he asserts that gravity is a result of angels pushing the planets around. One of these is an obvious metaphor, one isn't. Deciding between them is not doing violence to the text, and it shouldn't be with the Bible either.
Posted by: Matt Springer | February 11, 2009 12:11 PM
Dr. Isis:
Like others, I simply don't agree that love isn't quantifiable - it's clearly a real phenomenon that most of us experience on a regular basis, and can probably be investigated in terms of brain chemistry and activity. God, however, is not "clearly a real phenomenon" to a whole lot of people. What we are trying to get at is, why are you accepting this specific phenomenon that you call "god", saying that it doesn't have to be testable by scientific methods, when you reject a whole lot of other phenomena (such as all the gods you DON'T believe in) for the same reason we reject your god (lack of evidence)? Essentially, I'm just asking why you don't take the rational route one step further.
And please believe me when I say I'm not asking to pick a fight or try to make you doubt your religion - I honestly don't think there's a chance in hell I could convince you I'm right about this. It's simply the case that I have never been religious, except for a brief spot of deism as a young teen, and I cannot seem to understand what appears to me to be an inconsistent worldview - a worldview that says that some things need evidence and other things do not. How do you decide which things demand evidence? Why don't you believe in Russel's teapot, the FSM or little blue horses on Mars? I hope you or someone else here can shed some light on this.
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | February 11, 2009 12:21 PM
The question at hand is whether or not science and religion are in conflict, not which is correct where such conflict occurs.
Posted by: MartinM | February 11, 2009 12:22 PM
To clarify - When I say "some things need evidence" and "believing in" etc, in this case I'm talking specifically about evidence for existence. That is, there is no "evidence for" the existence of Russel's teapot, FSM or little blue horses on Mars, which is why we don't "believe in" those things. Hope that makes sense.
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | February 11, 2009 12:25 PM
"Why is believing in a god, and believing, completely based on faith, at conflict with scientific method and rigor?"
If you understand the scientific method I don't know how you could even ask this question. Science is about fact. I can't publish a paper in a scientific journal because I believe something is true - it must first be proven. To believe (and more specifically, to act as if) something is true without any proof is absolutely contrary to the scientific method. As a scientist, I live my life according to scientific method as best I can. I act based on fact. (this doesn't, however, mean that I do not act morally, but that is a whole other discussion) I can't imagine how a scientist could just totally suspend that mentality for other parts of their life.
Posted by: Katie | February 11, 2009 12:26 PM
Apologies for a response probably longer than the original blog....
Isis the Scientist On the other hand, I think it is an equal display of hubris to contend that, because I can take a physiological phenomenon and apply a mathematical construct to it, there must be no God.
With very few exceptions, "must" is not the position held by most Atheists, even those as infamous and notorious as PZ and Dawkins. (Hitchens might.) Rather, most consider the lack of God to be held probabilistically, with p within some epsilon of but not equal to 1. As I prefer to put it: while they rule out both Faith and Belief in God, they do not necessarily rule out the Hope.
There's a more subtle problem with your remark, as well. Saying "I can take a physiological phenomenon" implicitly requires a philosophical premise to allow the possibility for you to generally recognize whether a "phenomenon" is involved in two or more experiences (such as "see my keyboard before blinking" and "see my keyboard after blinking"), or whether it is mere coincidence. Such premises as allow this seem to rule out certain abstract conceptions of God, in effect saying "God DOES NOT do that!" For example...
God does not play dice with the universe: He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players [i.e. everybody], to being involved in an obscure and complex variant of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time. - Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens
We at least get cards with markings (but perhaps no explanation of what the markings mean). We presume that there is some Hope of making sense of the markings (our experience); this, however, is an assumption (mathematically formalizable) that must be taken on Faith.
tim: This is not the simplest model based on current evidence, and isn't that what science is about?
Science uses a very formal value of "simplest"; and that in turn rests on certain minimal assumptions implicit in the Philosophy of Science. However, honesty requires recognizing the nature of those assumptions, and that the conclusions may not hold for branches of Philosophy which prefer the Refutation.
That said... I don't see how you can resolve Empiricus' problem of deduction (see above about the keyboard) without some of them.
UnlikelyGrad: If you think that every decision in life can be decided by the scientific method, you are wrong.
You seem to be conflating "can" and "should". The full formal scientific method is computationally expensive; for small-consquence considerations, the gain does not justify cost. However... most people have experimented with ice-cream flavors, and it's rare these days to choose a life partner without having at least made some experiments for compatibility of personality (dating, silly; get your mind out of the gutter). As for loving our relatives, much of the experimental work there was done before our species's ancestors finished getting out from underfoot of the dinosaurs.
Sam C: The wafers and wine remain vegetable-based products, surely transubstantiation can only be understand by a mature mind as a metaphor or symbol?
Nope. As I understand Catholic Doctrine, while it is agreed that the material form remains unchanged, the spiritual identity of the matter is transformed to being Christ's Body, Soul and Divinity.
Isis the Scientist: For example, I love my son but this is not somehthing that can not be quantified nor can the null hypothesis "Dr. Isis does not love her son" be tested.
As a question of ethical proscriptions on research of human subjects, it certainly should not be tested experimentally. However, it does provide a "better" description of the observed evidence than the "null hypothesis" alternative.
Isis the Scientist: If someone can reasonably design an experiment that tests the null hypothesis "there is no God," I will perform it and accept the results.
"Testing" in science need not refer only to testing by experiment, but may also refer to competitive testing of hypotheses based on Minimum Description Length Induction for the presently available evidence. (The latter, of course, must be able to accommodate any new evidence which experiment turns up. "Who ordered that thing?" is allowable, but generally detrimental to MDLI. And for some things, running an experiment a few times to give the competition lots of data their conjecture describes poorly is easier than doing the damn math for the data you have.)
Isis the Scientist: I am currently working on a particular phenomenon that was thought to exist -- one that is very contrary to the conventional thinking and some of the earliest arguments against our ideas were that they were not the simplest explanation. Occam's razor can be useful, but if you don't watch it will cut you.
This is because the formal mathematical meaning of "simple" is not itself "simple" to grasp. However, that formal version indeed does follow from what I THINK are the minimum necessary assumptions for the general resolution of the problem of deduction (above about keyboards again): that formal logic is valid for philosophical inference, that the joint affirmation of the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms is self consistent, and that Reality and Evidence are Related with at most Recursively Enumerable formal complexity.
Also, I note again: while this expression may rule out Belief, it can not rule out Hope; and results are always in potential subject to change with more data.
S. Rivlin: One specific conflict that I have noticed between religion and science is the justified demand by women scientists, such as Isis, to be equal to men in every respect when in academia, while surrendering quietly to male chauvinism when in the Catholic church.
Surrendering quietly? Perhaps I ought introduce you to my oldest sister, who first chewed out a bishop on the topic at the tender age of six, and has not become any more quiet since. ("Even without insisting on equal rights, they nailed him to a cross after three years! How far would he have gotten taking up that as well?")
MartinM: If everything is natural, then from whence come the separate magisteria?"
Hypercomputation. However, I see no way to recognize that within evidence; hypercomputation allows for simple assertion of an isolated and atomic tenet on Faith, but I think precludes inference therefrom, since there is no possibility of a Type-0 Unrestricted Grammar to allow inference. Additionally, I see no way to test between Assertion and Refutation on such points. This makes the additional magisterium seem somewhat pointless.
Posted by: abb3w | February 11, 2009 12:28 PM
It does if one ascribes to methodological naturalism for explanations of physical phenomena. And if one isn't a methodological naturalist, one arguably isn't a scientist.
Nonsense. Science could, at the very least, examine candidate phenomena to see if they are truly miraculous, or if they are explainable via natural principles. You know, bleeding statues, Shroud of Turin, faith healing, etc. etc. etc. As far as I know, there are no such current phenomena that are inexplicable. The failure to find evidence for such miraculous occurrences makes their likelihood rather low.
(Curiously, all the really big alleged miracles, such as the revivification of the dead, the parting of large water bodies, the transmutation of H20 to fermented grape juice. happened prior to the availability of such scientific investigation. It's funny that now that we can examine such events, God has gotten shy...)
Posted by: Tulse | February 11, 2009 12:30 PM
Thanks for the post, even though it (inevitably) sparked the usual screechy hysterics from narrow-minded scientists. Of course it's possible to be a scientist and have religious faith - there are countless examples of them.
It's also sad a person can't simply write about their own thoughts without having people automatically try to prove how their view of the world is superior. As a Christian, I've never bullied atheists. When, as Dr. Isis has, a person writes intelligently about deeply meaningful issues in humanity without disparaging the beliefs of others, a well-balanced person would not try to prove she's stupid.
Here's one of the better reasons why a well-balanced person would not: you're human, and therefore, you have deep contradictions somewhere, you're going to be wrong about a great deal of things you believe, and you have plenty of things about you that could be ridiculed by a Spock-like inquiry. Get over yourself, and don't be obnoxious.
Posted by: Dan | February 11, 2009 12:43 PM
Well sure. In Feynman's The Character of Physical Law he talks in detail about the quantum double slit experiment, and he asserts that gravity is a result of angels pushing the planets around. One of these is an obvious metaphor, one isn't. Deciding between them is not doing violence to the text, and it shouldn't be with the Bible either.
It is not as easy as you make it out to be, the Genesis story is not an *obvious* metaphor. It isn't even hard to believe that the authors themselves accepted it as a perfectly rational creation story.
There are countless cases of this in the bible. Another example, the miracle of the talking Donkey that Balaam saw. It has been debated whether or not this should be taken literally for centuries, with countless different arguments presented for both sides.
Unlike with Feynman where we know enough about the man to make the *obvious* judgement that he does not believe gravity is the result of angels pushing planets around, we know very little about many of the authors of the bible. We can't safely say what they may have believed or what they may not have believed and because of this WE are interpreting what they said in one way or another. And of course that does violence to the text because we have to pick apart so much of that damned book to make any sense of it.
Posted by: Jon | February 11, 2009 12:49 PM
It's also sad a person can't simply write about their own thoughts without having people automatically try to prove how their view of the world is superior.
Amen, brother. Why can't we all just get along!?!? Srsly!
Posted by: Greg Laden/Name Withheld | February 11, 2009 12:51 PM
For a while, as I was reading Isis's post and the commenters' responses to it, I almost felt sorry for her, until I have realized that it took not only guts to write her post, but to expose herself to the wave of responses that she knew will come. I think that by doing so, Isis has proved that she is a real scientist who's willing to put to the test her "chosen" faith. Without attempting to predict whether or not Isis has opened within herself a dialogue regarding the many exising conflicts between her science and her religion, I am sure that the real scientist in her will guide her on the right path.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | February 11, 2009 12:56 PM
Thanks for a thoughtful post on this.
If someone can reasonably design an experiment that tests the null hypothesis "there is no God," I will perform it and accept the results.
Any time a deity claims (or has claims made to the effect on its behalf by its worshipers) to impact the real world, this can (or can in theory) be tested. Prayer does not heal beyond the placebo effect. All creation myths have been illustrated to be false. There is no paleontological evidence of any of the supernatural creatures described by religions that cannot be more plausibly explained by natural phenomena, be they angels, yaksha, or frost giants.
One cannot disprove the existence of an entity that makes no observable impact on the universe, but then why call such an impotent entity a deity?
Posted by: thingsbreak | February 11, 2009 12:59 PM
"Why is believing in a god, and believing, completely based on faith, at conflict with scientific method and rigor?"
If you understand the scientific method I don't know how you could even ask this question. Science is about fact.
I found this insulting, but I digress. I agree, science is also about formulating testable hypothesis... then testing it.
I can't publish a paper in a scientific journal because I believe something is true - it must first be proven.
Or it must be suggested to be true, then proven. I believe you COULD publish a paper in a scientific journal about, say, string theory, which is not 'proven' but that you may 'believe' is right, because you can show that in some certain limits, it behaves the way you expect. SOME people believe its a valid model. Doesn't mean its the right one. Its not proven. Its published about and yes, it is definately debated about. I could think of many other theories of quantum gravity that fall in this category.
What if the 'testability' of religion, came after our 'life'? What if the proof lies in things such as love?
To believe (and more specifically, to act as if) something is true without any proof is absolutely contrary to the scientific method. As a scientist, I live my life according to scientific method as best I can. I act based on fact. (this doesn't, however, mean that I do not act morally, but that is a whole other discussion) I can't imagine how a scientist could just totally suspend that mentality for other parts of their life.
You are entitled to your views. If its not proven, its not 'true' and you can't 'act based on fact'. I do not have trouble, reconciling my faith with my science. I think that believing based on faith is reconcilable with life, the world and hence science. This doesn't mean that I don't ask my science to stand up to the scruitiny of peer review, or that I will still believe in some physical theory, once it has been disproven with experiment. It also doesn't mean I don't question.
Posted by: pumpkinesque | February 11, 2009 1:03 PM
Slightly offtopic, but Steven Pinker has an interesting essay on 'dignity' vs. 'autonomy', arguing that the former is a superfluous concept once we recognize the latter.
More on topic, the only difference I've ever been able to understand between the terms 'supernatural' and 'natural' is that the natural can be understood by humans (not necessarily easily, but it's within human capability to do so, eventually) and the supernatural is fundamentally beyond human understanding - it can't ever be understood. (What's the difference between a 'god' and a 'powerful alien'? One is supernatural, one is natural...)
Me, I don't see the point in assuming something can't be understood. How can you tell? You try to understand it. If you succeed, it's natural. But if you fail, all you can conclude is that we don't understand it... yet. Lots of things have been confidently declared to require a 'supernatural' explanation, but have turned out to be 'natural'. If you decide something's supernatural, you'll stop trying to understand it.
For all I know, maybe there are things we can't ever understand. But I'm a practical guy, and I don't see the benefit in assuming that, or any indication that we can know what those things might be. (I suppose there's a pithy saying in there somewhere... "The only thing we can be sure we'll never know is what things we can never know.")
This is not intended as an insult or denigration of those who've concluded differently. Maybe they have access to information I don't. But, until/unless I get such info... well...
Posted by: Ray Ingles | February 11, 2009 1:09 PM
For example, I love my son but this is not somehthing that can not be quantified nor can the null hypothesis "Dr. Isis does not love her son" be tested.
I don't know about that. We don't directly detect neutrinos, but we can infer them by the effect they have on other things. Imagine some Hollywood alien invaders - perhaps insectlike - intelligent but totally lacking "philia" and "agape". Certainly much of human behavior would be puzzling to them, but I think they'd twig to the existence of love eventually. How else to explain the effectiveness of taking hostages?
I can imagine experiments they could perform - not ones that sane, moral humans would ever consider, but still. "How many volts is this guy willing to endure to keep us from eating his children?" You could get a numeric value for that. "How long will this guy keep bailing water to keep his wife from drowning?"
We can imagine more ethical experiments, too, of course. "How hard will this guy work to make sure his children are fed, housed, and educated? What is this woman willing to give up to make her mother-in-law happy?" etc. People do have ways to detect love in practice - how many songs are there about the difference between saying you love someone, and actually behaving as if you do?
It's not "quantified", exactly - but it's certainly 'being willing to test one's hypotheses and tie them into theories.' I have a lot of evidence my wife loves me, and try to give her such evidence.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | February 11, 2009 1:23 PM
Amen, sistah! I'll toast a eucharistic wine to that one as a matter of fact. I've always thought that to say that a religious person cannot be objective and analytical is like saying an atheist cannot be moral. Have you seen Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled"? I thought it was awesome for someone to have the cojones to come out and say that they believe both in God AND science.
Posted by: Extrovert Scientist | February 11, 2009 1:39 PM
Whoo boy, what I miss by coming late to the party.
Okay, come on, if we start insisting that science is incompatible with any irrational beliefs, we're going to have a bunch of scientists who are too busy revising their self-images to get any science done. As someone pointed out upthread, humans are perfectly capable of compartmentalization. In fact, they may be incapable of not compartmentalizing.
Also said upthread, but it bears repeating: embracing the subjective experience of something irrational is not the same as giving that irrationality authority. I don't insist that the visible spectrum rearrange itself because I think different colors are prettier if they're next to each other, but I'm not going to deny the subjective power of beauty, either.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | February 11, 2009 1:39 PM
REG's comments: RIGHT on! I have never had any conflicts with my faith and science, specifically evolution and faith. My faith upbringing is Catholic & Methodist, which I think may be an influence.
These denominations (also Lutheran & Anglican) seem to be the 'educated Christians'. In other words, they have a long history of founding educational institutions and encouraging their members to attend them to post-secondary ed. The more 'protestant' or evangelical denominations, who also have a less prominent education history seem to be the ones who get all in an uproar about science and evolution.
I wonder, does anyone else have a take on this?
Posted by: DNLee | February 11, 2009 1:55 PM
My view of religion is complex. I have no belief in a God or gods, and don’t find that I need such a belief to be a good person.
I see some people’s use of religion as a tool, a tool to help them be a good person and to lead a good life. I respect such people. What ever tools one finds to be useful in making yourself into a good person, one should use.
My problem with religion is not that some people use it to become better people, but that all too many use it to justify doing evil. Religion was used to justify slavery, the Holocaust, the Crusades, 9/11, the Inquisition, burning witches and all manner of evil.
The problem is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Organized religion is primarily a means of acquiring power by those in authority. Their acquisition of power and their maintenance of that power is the major motivation of such individuals, because individuals not so motivated do not seek out those positions of authority.
This is the root cause of the problem the Catholic Church has with pedophile priests. Preventing a scandal was more important than preventing children from being raped. Preserving the power of the Church was more important than mitigating the injury that the Church caused.
I think there is a fundamental conflict between science and religion. The conflict arises because religious leaders are incapable of limiting the scope of where they think they know what is “true”, and they have no way of checking their beliefs other than by their feelings. Scientists know that if an idea cannot be tested, then it is not a scientific idea. Religious authorities have no such limitation.
If the Pope asserted that physiological effect XYZ happened via mechanism ABC, and that it was a matter of Faith, then all Catholics would have to accept his Infallible Pronouncement or cease being Catholic. We all know that is a crappy way to do science, and that it doesn’t work. Scientists know it doesn’t work, but the religious authorities don’t know it doesn’t work, and they have no other way of thinking about reality.
This is the fundamental dichotomy that religious authorities set up, that “one cannot serve two masters”. Either one accepts religious teachings as the religious authorities promulgate them, or one follows the scientific method and determines the truth value of something by experiment.
Many religious authorities are sufficient politicians that they won’t make stupid pronouncements that might be shown to be obviously wrong. The Pope is very unlikely to make pronouncements on physiology the way the Church made pronouncements on the Earth being the center of the solar system.
Posted by: daedalus2u | February 11, 2009 1:55 PM
At the risk of seeming snarky:
I have no trouble at all seeing how a person can be both a Catholic and a scientist.
I do have trouble understanding how a person can be both a Catholic and a feminist.
Which is a whole different can of worms, I know.
Posted by: sandy | February 11, 2009 2:42 PM
Dan:
Do you actually have an argument to make against the claims of those screechy hysterical narrow-minded scientists?
For that matter, do any of the supporters of religion want to provide a defense of their view beyond singing verses of "Kumbaya" and speaking airily of love? Quite a few folks have provided thoughtful, serious arguments about the problems of religion in science, such as the impact of accepting the possibility of miracles, and I don't see any of the religious folks offering any real rebuttal, or engaging the actual arguments. (And that in itself might speak volumes about the impact of religion on science...)
Posted by: Tulse | February 11, 2009 2:45 PM
Another idea I am fascinated by. I am a poor feminist if I choose to remain a part of an organization that is, at its core, a patriarchy. Rather than attempting dialogue and change within the context of said organization, I should refuse to continue to associate with said organization?
If you all will excuse me, I have an office and a laboratory to pack up because, by these standards, I can't be a feminist and continue to participate in science.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | February 11, 2009 2:48 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 11, 2009 2:49 PM
Some comments are based on the assumption that all religion is based on a literal reading of the bible. That isn't true. Only certain branches of Christianity do so. Other branches of Christianity and Judaism don't. Furthermore, those are not the only religions in the world. I'm not familiar with Islam, but given that science flourished in the Islamic world at one time, I'd assume there is a wide diversity there, too. There is also Hinduism, Buddhism, many Aboriginal religions, and so on, which have no relationship to the Hebrew or Christian bible, in some cases to no written text at all. The same underlying love of life and wonder that is part of my spiritual life is what draws me to science.
Posted by: Lilian Nattel | February 11, 2009 2:55 PM
At the risk of redirecting flaming arrow towards me...
I find the belief that the scientific method can be applied to ANYTHING somewhat dogmatic myself.
My personal religious beliefs are not difficult for me to hold as a scientist, except that I have experienced nothing but trouble and hardship for sharing this with non-religious/atheist/agnostic colleagues. I find nothing stirs them up like religion, and I think it's because they genuinely are threatened by something that cannot be "tested" by the scientific method. The overall discussion on these things is in no way helped by polarized perspectives on either end of the spectrum. That's right, I'm lumping you atheists in with fundamentalist Christians! You're all so "anti-the-other-guy" it's ridiculous.
I will say this- I have seriously questioned what exactly I believe for pretty much my entire life, constantly subjecting it to the rigors of my logic, comparing it to the beliefs of others, scanning the Bible (which I do NOT take literally) and other texts, and always discussing it with others (God included). And so, I do not believe blindly.
Also, I do not believe in things that are nonsensical. Seriously, why are atheists always quick to point to the allegorical Old Testament stuff, as if that is what my beliefs are based on? I know the Bible pretty well, and the context of everything is important! You can go cherry-picking through and find a Bible verse to support just about anything, but what did Christ say sums it all up? "Love God first, and love others as you love yourself" (paraphrasing). This is the crux of my belief, and anything in the Bible that doesn't jive with that isn't pertinent in our modern context. If anyone needs a specific example, I'd be happy to elaborate.
Like Isis, I too would cease to believe if God could be proven to not exist to me. But God's existence can never be proven using the scientific method, because NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN using the scientific method. It can only be proven to not be so.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 3:01 PM
For that matter, do any of the supporters of religion want to provide a defense of their view beyond singing verses of "Kumbaya" and speaking airily of love?
Ok Tulse, if you leave out love.
I'f I assigned 'god' a probability, it would have to be some non-zero probability of existance. Why would it be a zero probability?
I re--iterate again as has been said before, maybe `miracles' are explainable. I have no problem with that, and if they are (and I believe they can be) it does not have any sway with my faith, which happens to be at this point in time, completely based on faith.
What is the issue with the testable part of the hypothesis being after death? (or does all this not count as an argument?)
Posted by: pumpkinesque | February 11, 2009 3:08 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 11, 2009 3:09 PM
Way to prove my point about atheists not contributing helpfully to a discussion, Reggie.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 3:12 PM
Isis: Another idea I am fascinated by. I am a poor feminist if I choose to remain a part of an organization that is, at its core, a patriarchy. Rather than attempting dialogue and change within the context of said organization, I should refuse to continue to associate with said organization? If you all will excuse me, I have an office and a laboratory to pack up because, by these standards, I can't be a feminist and continue to participate in science.
It depends. Do you actually attempt dialogue and change with in the context of your Catholicism? Debate much with a priest about having women further involved in the clergy? Or perhaps try to get Cardinals and other higher-ups in the church to not be quite so wingnutty in regards to contraception or cases with Berlusconi, the Vatican, and Eluana Englaro?
If you are seriously attempting dialogue within the confines of church structure, then good for you, and good luck in your attempts. But, comparing it to what you do as a scientist appears a false dichotomy from here. With everything thing you do as a scientist, you are challenging the patriarchy as it were, by proving yourself an able scientist. Is there something you do as a Catholic in the context of the religion that you can honestly compare to what you do as a scientist, or are you simply accepting your church, and when you are challenged on it's archaic, chauvinistic practices outside of church, simply say, "but it doesn't represent my views, it is just a few bad apples in the larger bunch."
I don't know, but if I had to guess, the answer would probably be no, you don't really challenge the Church's patriachy. However, I'll gladly be proven wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that forces for liberal changes inside of the Church generally benefit a lot of people.
Posted by: Jenny T | February 11, 2009 3:13 PM
"It does if one ascribes to methodological naturalism for explanations of physical phenomena. And if one isn't a methodological naturalist, one arguably isn't a scientist."
Not at all. Only philosophical naturalism requires a physical explanation for all phenomena. Methodological naturalism would be perfectly happy with supernatural explanations so long as they were verifiable - say, a time machine and a video camera in the Garden Tomb circa 33 AD.
Unfortunately this does not seem to be forthcoming, so the intractible disagreement between those who consider the Gospel authors reliable and those who don't will continue. And continue until either the heat death of the universe or the Second Coming - depending on who's right!
Posted by: Matt Springer | February 11, 2009 3:13 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 11, 2009 3:15 PM
Mousegirl - That's right, I'm lumping you atheists in with fundamentalist Christians! You're all so "anti-the-other-guy" it's ridiculous.
All?
(I've got a somewhat relevant comment that's apparently held up in moderation 'cause it's got a couple hyperlinks. Oh, well.)
Posted by: Ray Ingles | February 11, 2009 3:17 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 11, 2009 3:20 PM
Wow, those are all great examples LITERALLY INTERPRETED FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT, Reggie. It is so awesome how you're fulfilling all of the stereotypes I complained about.
Not all Christians (or Jews that I know) take the Old Testament literally. It's allegory, a lot of it passed down through oral tradition way before it was written down. It's not cherry-picking to take into account who the authors, the intended audience, and original context of a text were in determining how it applies to your life.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 3:24 PM
re Reggie, comment #66:
All of that is a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. Several people now have commented that all Christians and Jews do not take the Old Testament literally. It's an allegory, derived from oral traditions. Understanding the actual context of a verse/passage in order to interpret it for yourself is the opposite of cherry-picking.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 3:29 PM
Sorry for the double post, Reggie. I didn't mean to berate you twice.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 3:34 PM
Most of the comments on this blog, if not all, are about personal beliefs. Many of the religious believers appear to be happy to rub along with their fellow Catholics or Methodists or Jews and to go to Mass, or whatever, with folks who have quite different views on points of doctrine. Their faith helps them to be good to each other and their fellows - and does not conflict with their work as scientists either, it seems.
However, whilst I am quite happy to walk in the road to pass by people praying on the pavement, or to be woken before getting-up-time by calls to prayer, or even to be made uncomfortable by the disapproval of churchgoers, I would not care to live in a country where I could lose my job for being an atheist, or be killed for not wanting to believe in God. It is bad enough living in a country where parents are free to indoctrinate their children with superstitious beliefs, and where freedom of speech is curtailed for fear of offending some but not all religious believers.
In the case of science, however, I do not recall any death threats when a scientist comes up with a new theory. Or a country that adopts a scientific position and does not allow any citizen to question it. Religious believers have often threatened scientists (as well as other believers of other faiths) with violence and book burning but I don't think the reverse has ever happened.
It is fine for rational intellectual people to air their views on moderate religion. The people who suffer are the ignorant, the vulnerable and the poverty-stricken who are exploited and manipulated by means of unscrupulous priests, politicians, mullahs and ayatollahs et al who contrive to enrich and aggrandise themselves at the expense of these unfortunate people.
One religion for you, quite another for the masses!
Posted by: Clichoid, UK | February 11, 2009 3:35 PM
Because all people who hold a particular belief must hold the platonic ideal of that belief and become a testing ground for the belief? There's a difference between saying beliefs are compatible (i.e., they exist in the same person without distress) and saying they can be logically reconciled.
Look, if Isis were telling me how to live my life based on her religious principles, I'd be all over having her tell me how those beliefs relate to the world in which I live. As it is, demanding that she defend them on that basis makes about as much sense as asking me to defend my belief that purple and green belong together.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | February 11, 2009 3:40 PM
I don't know how anyone can avoid the fact that this subject is always highly charged.
(Tip the servers, I'll be here until Thursday, shows 9 and 11.)
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | February 11, 2009 3:45 PM
Do you actually have an argument to make against the claims of those screechy hysterical narrow-minded scientists?
Point is, I don't need force one down your throat. Per above, get over yourself.
Okay, that was a bit curt. Sorry. But it's so obvious that hordes and hordes of people who are both religious and scientists are aware of the views held by you and the heretofore called SHNaMS. I mean, really. We're smart - many religious minds are sharper than yours and mine. And again, per above, get over yourself and the fact that a great deal of humanity doesn't agree with you on the question of whether a person can be religious and a scientist. It's a mark of poor character to try to force everyone to agree with you.
Posted by: Dan | February 11, 2009 3:53 PM
"It's a mark of poor character to try to force everyone to agree with you."
And that, I'm afraid, is a mark of most religions...Islam anyone?
Posted by: Clichoid, UK | February 11, 2009 3:57 PM
#72, an excellent observation. It scares me to death to think that any type of religious viewpoint should be legislated or forced on to anyone else. I have argued this many times with religious conservatives (and I honestly do not interpret the Bible to support such a thing) to no avail.
And yet, I cannot help but think of science as just the opposite as what you describe in your second paragraph. The atmosphere of science (at least where I am) is openly anti-religion. I think of the discrimination I would face if my PI knew I was a Christian. Or how hard it would be to set up a good post-doc next year if I put it on my C.V. No, for survival it's better if I just keep quiet during the flying spaghetti monster jokes.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 3:57 PM
pumpkinesque
Nothing in science has a "zero" probability, and no thoughtful atheist would say that there is a zero probability that a god exists. Even Dawkins acknowledges this. However, no thoughtful atheist or scientist would say that there is a zero probability of unicorns, or pixies, or Klingons, either. The claim being made is that the likelihood of existence of a god is roughly the same as those entities.
But if they aren't miraculous events, but simply the result of natural laws, what is there to worship? Do you offer prayers of gratitude to Steve Jobs for the iPhone? Do you give praise to the Great DeBakey for developing heart transplant techniques? If your god isn't supernatural, in what way is it a god?
Matt Springer:
Not so. Philosophical naturalism in an ontological claim that all there is is natural. Methodological naturalism is essentially an epistemic claim that everything can be explained by invoking natural causes.
Huh? Honestly, did you read what you just wrote?
So you think that a scientist would actually say "I can't explain how this dead person was revivified, therefore it is a miracle"? Do you think a layperson should say the same thing each time a defibrillator works?
There are plenty of things in this world that science cannot currently explain, such as gravity, but for the most part we don't resort to supernatural explanations ("it must be angels pulling on everything!").
mousegirl:
Is the New Testament an allegory? Did Jesus not literally come back to life after being killed? Did he not literally change water into wine? If the whole Bible is just an allegory, without any actual supernatural content, in what way is it actually a religious document and not just a novel?
Posted by: Tulse | February 11, 2009 3:59 PM
Katie: Science is about fact.
Science is about what Inferences are allowed by Evidence.; "Fact" is the provence of Mathematics, a related but distinct branch of Philosophy.
Tulse: And if one isn't a methodological naturalist, one arguably isn't a scientist.
However, if one is a methodological naturalist by Faith direct, rather than inference from other premises, one again arguably isn't really a scientist.
Tulse: For that matter, do any of the supporters of religion want to provide a defense of their view beyond singing verses of "Kumbaya" and speaking airily of love?
I fit rather in the cracks between camps; I believe I would be closer to opposing than supporting. Nonetheless, I certainly have no problem "giving the devil every bit of his due"... and not a bit more. In this light, I would like to point to David Sloan Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral and to Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel. Together, they would appear to suggest that Religion has evolved (socially) as a necessary component of human societies over the minimum population for ZPG stable diversity.
mousegirl: I find the belief that the scientific method can be applied to ANYTHING somewhat dogmatic myself.
I'd argue it's only "Dogma" if taken as a primary tenet of Faith. Instead, it's an inference from more basic tenets.
mousegirl: I think it's because they genuinely are threatened by something that cannot be "tested" by the scientific method.
Your opinion is noted. However, the concern is that the basis for the claim "that cannot be tested" is in fact a disguise for "that must not be tested", which ought sound alarms of threat for even the most casual student of history or philosophy. Contrariwise, theists seem to react with outright alarm at the prospect that the object of their Faith might be tested... which, indeed, involves some theological hazard to the nature of Faith.
mousegirl: But God's existence can never be proven using the scientific method, because NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN using the scientific method. It can only be proven to not be so.
This is an example of the same equivocation on proof that I mentioned in the previous incarnation of this discussion:
In deference to Dr. Isis's courtesy and because elements on both sides are already overly acrimonious, I'll omit my usually preferred blunt example.
pumpkinesque: I'f I assigned 'god' a probability, it would have to be some non-zero probability of existance. Why would it be a zero probability?
If the definition of "God" is given so as to be self-contradictory. Probability of (Q AND (NOT Q)) is necessarily zero. If the definition is not self-contradictory, the probability is non-zero... but may be within arbitrary epsilon, as I noted early.
Mike Haubrich, FCD: Tip the servers
Do not tip the servers unless you want the server sysadmin coming after you with a cattle prod and a roll of carpet.
(Try the veal.)
Posted by: abb3w | February 11, 2009 4:02 PM
Dr. Isis is just waking up from a little nap and checking in on her little chickens. Clichoid, did you click through and read "Dignitatis Humanae?" A snippet of the beginning:
I have no desire to force anything on anyone. That is, in part, why I am careful about discussing my religion in the context of this forum. All that said, people seem interested in my life as a scientist and this is part of it. So, I offer my perspective simply to illustrate different aspects of my scientist life.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | February 11, 2009 4:04 PM
Dear Dr. Isis,
I am a young woman who is a practicing Catholic, and also an experimental physicist (defending in a few weeks!). I have found that this combination makes me quite an oddity in this day and age. I must admit that I personally do not know another physicist who is a practicing Catholic. (Although I know they exist! There is an article about a physicist priest in this week's APS News.) I certainly do not know a Catholic physicist who is a woman. This causes me to sometimes feel I'm leading a very misunderstood, isolated life.
This is why I am presently de-lurking to thank you for what you are doing here on this blog. You have taken the risk, putting yourself out there, in order to take on the status quo bare handed (while wearing beautiful shoes, of course!), and you are doing it in a brilliantly entertaining, productive way that I think, in the end, is bringing people closer together through some great discussion. Your courage is amazing and is an inspiration. I want you to know that for me (and I'm sure others) your hard work is having a very positive impact. Thank you and please keep it up!
Posted by: anne | February 11, 2009 4:08 PM
Given that Isis doubtless has lots of things to do, it looks like moderation will take a while. So, a paraphrase of what I wrote, hyperlink-free:
What's the difference between 'supernatural' and 'natural', anyway? The best definition I've seen is that 'supernatural' is unknowable by humans - something forever beyond human ken, something we will never be capable of understanding. If it can be understood (eventually, at least), it's 'natural' - if it's beyond human comprehension, it's 'supernatural'. (What's the difference between a 'god' and a 'powerful alien'? One's supernatural, the other isn't.)
But how can we, in practice, distinguish between something 'currently unknown but comprehensible' and something 'forever unknowable'? From a practical perspective, the only way to tell which category something falls into is to try to understand it; if you succeed, then it was knowable. The problem is, if you fail, you can't conclude that it's unknowable. It might be... but it also might be the case that you just didn't happen to figure out something knowable, and you or someone else might have better luck on a subsequent attempt. In practice, all we can divide things into is "things we think we've got a handle on" and "things we don't understand, yet". There is no way we can tell the difference between 'something we can never understand' and 'something we can eventually understand but do not understand yet.' We've seen plenty of cases where giving up on ever understanding something turned out to be unjustified.
It's in that sense that I find religion and science to be at odds. Lots of things have been confidently declared to be 'supernatural' that have turned out to be perfectly explainable and comprehensible. If you declare something to be 'unknowable' - which, so far as I can see, is what calling it 'supernatural' means - then you tend to stop trying to understand it.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | February 11, 2009 4:10 PM
"In the case of science, however, I do not recall any death threats when a scientist comes up with a new theory. Or a country that adopts a scientific position and does not allow any citizen to question it. Religious believers have often threatened scientists (as well as other believers of other faiths) with violence and book burning but I don't think the reverse has ever happened."
I say this as a professional scientist, and as one who has loved and will love science all his life. There's pretty much no one with more respect for science than me. So with that preface, I'd have to say that this is wholly wrong.
A very large number of regimes in the past century have done exactly what you say. The USSR killed scientists who disagreed with Trofim Lysenko's rejection of Mendelian inheritance, and Germany's "Deutsche Physik" was every bit the violent travesty you'd expect.
Posted by: Matt Springer | February 11, 2009 4:11 PM
#78- The New Testament gospels were written from eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life (although decades after the fact). Acts and Romans are eyewitness accounts of the early church. The rest of the NT is a compilation of correspondence and prophesy (Revelation). So generally, the NT can be taken more literally than the old testament. However, there is still the cultural context of things to consider.
The two events you refer to are the first and last miracles of Christ. Miracles. There may be a physical explanation, but the Bible is not concerned with providing one. The spiritual/religious explanation is that Christ was both God and man, hence the miracles. The recorders of those events portrayed them as miracles after the fact, so that is the context. They do not rule out physical explanations, but since they had none, these events were dubbed miraculous. You can take it at face value, or infer some scientific explanation.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 4:16 PM
Wow... I had no idea there would be this many comments, when I wrote the first one. I feel a bit like I was part of a "piling on", but as the first one, I will plead not guilty.
I thank you for your response (erm, the first one, which included part of what I was asking); as with a few others, I feel obliged to point out that we can and do measure love. In fact, I have taught a senior seminar where half the semester was on the topic of love; I have several nice sciencey books on my shelf right here looking experimentally at love. It is one of my favorite scientific subjects!
I also have a bunch of books on the history of Spiritualism, the scientific search for evidence of an afterlife. It is also a favorite subject.
We have to be a bit more elegant in our experimental design when we are looking at more complicated things; physics is considerably simpler, which is why physicists can be so very accurate. But a scientific investigation into religious belief is not merely possible, it is an important part of existing literature.
I suppose I should add that it doesn't bother me a bit if you are not an atheist. My curiosity was, as expressed in the first comment, to see if you could make a relative comparison between the amount that science informs the rest of your life, and the way that religion informs the rest of your life.
Posted by: Anon | February 11, 2009 4:45 PM
Mousegirl: this may interest you (or others interested in an alternative, or at least expanded, interpretation of the OT)
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 11, 2009 4:52 PM
Anon, I think your questions are very valid. I'm not really sure how to answer your question about how science/faith inform my life. I suppose that the simplest explanation I have is to say that the science provides me the "how" where my faith provides me the "why." I really can see no area in my life where faith and science contradict each other. While I am not secretive about my faith in the workplace when asked about it, I have never told someone that the reason we obtain a particular result is "because God made it that way."
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | February 11, 2009 4:58 PM
#80- Your inference is false. As I said in one of my comments, if it (God's existence) could be tested and proven to not be so, I would cease to believe. I do not fear a scientific examination of my faith, though I'm not enjoying these little attacks. I am simply both- a scientist and a Christian. Not a stereotype.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 4:59 PM
Foolfodder: Yes, literature as "whatever writings are relevant to the discussion" works for me. I'm friends with some pretty staunch atheists who have literature which they hold on almost the same level that I hold holy scripture. There's no reason why this can't apply to any belief system, not just organized religion.
Tulse: No, I'm not saying that Jesus used technology. Most atheists and agnostics (including many on this thread) say: "How can you believe these things??!!! They're (insert expletives of choice) impossible!!"
I point out that many of these things are quite possible to us limited mortals with the use of technology, so it's really not much of a stretch for me to believe that they're possible to a infinitely more knowledgeable being without the use of technology.
Now, if I'd lived in the 17th century, belief in these things would be much more of a stretch, because I really would have no idea how they might be possible at all.
abb3w: You seem to be conflating "can" and "should". The full formal scientific method is computationally expensive; for small-consquence considerations, the gain does not justify cost. However... most people have experimented with ice-cream flavors
Ah...but you can only take the scientific method so far on ice cream flavors. Thanks to the scientific method, I can walk into Baskin-Robbins and say, "I would definitely enjoy these six flavors, and would definitely hate these five." But if I walk in and look at the display case and say, "If I don't have Winter White Chocolate today, I'm going to die!"...how is that scientific? It's not that other choices haven't worked out well for me in the past. It's not like I don't enjoy eating some of those other flavors. What's rational about insisting that you have to have one particular flavor?
Another example. About a year ago, I was trying to figure out what I wanted to be when I grew up. (That's a joke: I'm almost 37.) I always try to start out logically, so I took a couple of career tests. My #1 career, according to the tests? Tech writer. Now I've done a bit of tech writing in my time, and I'm really not too bad at it. I'm sure I would have become a very competent tech writer had I pursued that as a profession. Alas, there was major one problem: I hate tech writing. Absolutely loathe it. So the "scientific" way of doing things pretty much fell flat on its face.
What I ended up doing, after much prayer, was something I never would have thought of, logically speaking. And now that I'm on track for a new career, I'm fired up! I'm excited! And guess what...I've discovered talents that I never knew I had.
You may not call that a religious decision; fine. The point I'm trying to make is that there are decisions in life for which logic doesn't always provide the best answer.
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | February 11, 2009 5:03 PM
Ray Ingles: But how can we, in practice, distinguish between something 'currently unknown but comprehensible' and something 'forever unknowable'? From a practical perspective, the only way to tell which category something falls into is to try to understand it; if you succeed, then it was knowable. The problem is, if you fail, you can't conclude that it's unknowable.
Actually, it's worse than that. When we try to understand it, we provide a description of evidence. In that sense, we can always "know" anything that there is evidence for. There may be better ways of "knowing"; EG, rather than knowing that the rock was at about fifty meters up at one point, 45m one second later, 30m after two seconds, about 6m at three, we may be able to describe this with the usual "h equals h-naught plus one-half g times square of delta-t". Science lets us decide between correct descriptions which we should expect to continue being correct. However, we can still "know" of any experience by the experience itself; the "absolute null" hypothesis is "ummm... this is data".
So, our method of testing our understanding inherently presumes that the answer can be understood. Which means from a "practical perspective", if there are unknowables about, you can't even hope to determine your "knowing" is right or wrong. (Direct result of hypercomputation solving the Turing Halting problem.) Back to my earlier example of the keyboard: how do you "know" whether or not that when you blinked, your keyboard from before was not replaced by a malicious bogart with another keyboard ineffably different from your original? Save by the bounding assumption of Recursively Enumerable Complexity, I'm not sure you can.
Posted by: abb3w | February 11, 2009 5:05 PM
Isis said (#58):
"If you all will excuse me, I have an office and a laboratory to pack up because, by these standards, I can't be a feminist and continue to participate in science."
This was my point in my earlier comment (#18). It appears that you are very combative about the eqaulity of women in academia, yet, I didn't read a single post from you about the lack of such equality in the church.
By all means, be a feminist everywhere, not just in your working place. Are you as combative in your church about equality as you are at your university?
Posted by: S. Rivlin | February 11, 2009 5:22 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 11, 2009 5:25 PM
I appreciate these kinds of posts, and even the questions in the comments, as "disrespectful" as some would construe them. Because I am an atheist, I think there are good reasons for believing that the probability of any sort of Christian-type deity is very low, and for the life of me I do not understand why very intelligent, reasonable people do not agree with these reasons as well.
Not trying to "disprove" Isis. And I wub Isis! But... what reason does the great goddess have to think that the universe works in such a way as the Catholic church describes it? Might she be able to share this, in appropriate ways and doses, over time? And all of the other good questions posed by the people in this thread. (I mean the good questions, not the "Bwa-haa" from the jerk or two that have shown up.)
Posted by: MuseInVivo | February 11, 2009 5:30 PM
"That rabbits chew their cud is an allegory? If you can't admit that it is an outright error I shan't be able to muster any respect for you at all."
Fun fact: the Hebrew word used in that case appears twice in extant ancient Hebrew texts, and its derivation and definition are unknown. Its rendering as "hare" by the translators of the KJV is certainly a mistake.
The good money in the historical error/metaphor/whatever game these days is in the historicity of the Exodus and conquest of Canaan.
Posted by: Matt Springer | February 11, 2009 5:40 PM
And what did Jesus die for? An allegory?
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 11, 2009 5:42 PM
The science of romance: Brains have a love circuit
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | February 11, 2009 5:45 PM
Muse, I appreciate very much the tone of the discussion in this thread. I wub you too, little chicken. Give mama some time to reflect back on the 95 comments thus far and you may see some of the questions addressed in the future.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | February 11, 2009 5:53 PM
#93- Maybe "allegory" is not precise enough for that one; I apologize. The OT is not written as discrete, stand-alone sentences of concrete facts. The overarching themes and stories are allegories, and the details sometimes get lost in translation. Obviously rabbits do not chew cud. Having owned a pet rabbit, I can attest to this. It seems like an error when taken out of context as fact, I agree.
The verses you're referring to (Deut. 14:7 and Lev. 11:6) are passages describing the dietary restrictions put forth on the Jews. I know very little about this as I do not follow these guidelines, just that their purpose was to set the Jews apart (and, it has been hypothesized, to decrease food-borne illnesses). Both passages mention several animals, including rabbits. I can only guess that the animal they're referring to is not actually a rabbit, but that "rabbit" was the best English word for it, or was the word (or similar to the word) used at the time to describe that particular animal.
Perhaps someone Jewish would know, since it partains to kosher? Like I said, I take it as allegory and not literal fact, so the point of the passage (dietary restrictions to set apart the Hebrew people as special) is all that I take from it.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 6:07 PM
Without neuroscience, how much someone loves another can be estimated (with limited but useful confidence) by observing what sacrifices they have made for that person.
Posted by: llewelly | February 11, 2009 6:27 PM
Geez, no time to recover from the last one! Thanks #95, for the Hebrew lesson. Another reason why I don't take OT verbatim.
#96- People still believe all of those flavors of Christianity, and are still arguing about it. I was simplifying because there are a multitude of views on this and have been for centuries, like you say. My simplification (Christ is both God and man) is the most common, though I readily admit I could be wrong.
What did Jesus die for? As a gross oversimplification, He died for all of mankind, as a fulfillment of those allegorical OT prophecies.
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 6:38 PM
Obviously such a person must agitate for a female pope. (Come to think of it, a few Catholic priests have been excommunicated for ordaining women.) Joking aside, while the thought of the internal conflict I personally would expect to suffer if I were both a feminist and a Catholic makes me squirm, it seems to me that most religious people pick and choose.
Some people have the attribute of combing through their ideas and compulsively hammering out as many contradictions and inconsistencies as they can find. They apply scientific methods to religious beliefs, and to their estimations of how people feel about others (example: love). Such people are attracted to science. Scientific training encourages the development of this attribute to some extent, both in those that already have it, and those that don't. The stronger this attribute is, the bigger an advantage one has in science - but at no level is it necessary, much less automatic.
As much as I'm convinced said attribute is a big advantage to scientists, I think it's a rare attribute - although less rare as one looks higher up the scientific hierarchy. The overwhelming majority of humans do not think that way, and do not naturally think it's important to make their ideas and beliefs consistent. Compartmentalization is natural for nearly everyone.
(That being said - my own trek to atheism began, more or less, with the realization that the peoples of the Book of Mormon had both horses and elephants in the Americas, but the archaeological and paleontological records indicated no horses or elephants in the Americas during that time. )
Posted by: llewelly | February 11, 2009 7:16 PM
isis, believe what you want to believe in your private life. i will believe what i want to believe in mine. i won't try to convince you my side is right, if you return the favor. all i have to say on the subject of faith vs science is that so long as we do our science in a logical, ethical and rigorous way in the laboratory, we both totally rock no matter how we spend our sundays.
at some point we have to make allowances for personal and cultural choices in our day to day lives. we humans do a lot of shit that may or may not be logical but it brings us happiness. life is short enough and hard enough, and happiness is sometimes scarce. there's no need to push sources of it away.
Posted by: leigh | February 11, 2009 7:25 PM
mousegirl:
Respectfully, if they have a physical explanation, then they aren't miracles. Period. By definition miracles are events which defy physical explanation. As I alluded earlier, we can now "resurrect" some people from death via defibrillators and CPR. It would be silly to call those things a "miracle".
Again respectfully, but I completely disagree. The reason these events were notable, the reason they were taken as signs of divinity, was precisely because they defied everyday explanation. No one would have been impressed if the Gospel writers said "Here's something that Jesus did that seems pretty incredible, but may have been just a stage magic trick". The whole point of miracles is they they indicate supernatural power.
Posted by: Tulse | February 11, 2009 7:28 PM
One of the things that I often feel gets ignored when these "is religion compatible with science?" debates start up is that that question can be interpreted several different way. The question could be whether one can be a good scientist and religious. It can also be whether certain religious ideas, like miracles or a soul, are in conflict with accepted science and/or methodological naturalism. Or it can even simply be asking whether it is best to consistently apply scientific method in all aspects of one's life.This almost always leads to people arguing completely different points with each side fighting the battles they think are easier.
Being as I'm interested in neuroscience and the like, I would find it hard to do science and not run into some intellectual conflict or problem with many religions. It's difficult to reconcile the idea of some intangible thing that either is the "mind" or effects the "mind" (the soul) with a science that looks at how the nervous system works to do all the things that we think of as the mind. This is not to say that it is impossible to be both a neuroscientist and a religious person. It would just take some rationalization that I have never encountered or compartmentalization of ideas.
Posted by: LostMarbles | February 11, 2009 8:26 PM
Tulse, you misinterpret me. Or perhaps I was unclear. I was comparing what was recorded (miracles) in the context of the eyewitness observers back in Jesus's day, to how they might be observed now (open to physical explanation, and not necessarily miracles).
My whole point was that the eyewitness observers HAD no physical explanation, so they interpreted what happened as miracles. The scientific understanding of that culture could not reason it as anything else. Indeed, you're correct in that they were taken as signs of divinity BECAUSE they could not be explained. My point is that just because these events were initially called miracles doesn't mean there is no other explanation possible today; it means that to the people who wrote the book, no other explanation was possible to them.
I'm actually agreeing with you that other physical explanations could exist, if one chooses to believe them. But to the people who were there and subsequently wrote the Biblical account, they were miracles and only divinity could explain them. I'm just pointing out the context!
Posted by: mousegirl | February 11, 2009 8:32 PM
Forget the science/religion question. Read the history of the time.
It baffles me how the idea of "Christianity" consumes so much time when there is no there there. Biblical history is not real history. It was written well after the "event" by a mishmash of unknowns, none of which had ever met the Christ, and was assembled into the currently accepted versions (many thousands of versions) over hundreds of years.
Further, you won't find anything new or unique in Christianity (Immaculate Conception, virgin birth, resurrection, eternal life, miracles, the whole nine yards). The Cult of ISIS for example, centered on the concepts of resurrection and eternal life. Mithras had the same birthday as Jesus, but it was said to have taken place hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, and it was miraculous as well. Eternal life was also part of the package. It would take a couple of hours to find that there were many gods that preceded the Christian God in form and substance.
More relevant: You won't even find mention of Jesus in recorded history outside of the NT. Emperors, clerics, generals, yes, but no mention of this fellow that was born of a virgin, performed miracles, preached peace (with a vengeance), was crucified, died, and was resurrected. Not a mention in the records. Not a speck of proof that it ever happened.
#19 said:
Is there a religious method? I think there is; I would iterate it thus:
(1) Research "literature" (whatever religious writings belong to your faith)
(2) Pray for guidance as to how to apply it to your life
(3) Do what you decide is right
My problem is with Point (1). How can you research the "literature" when the literature has been assembled by the forerunners of your "one true faith?"
Does not compute. As a scientist, I would imagine (I'm not a scientist) that you'd be compelled to study the larger picture -- that you'd be driven to research the entire known universe of religions before you would be able to make a choice of religion. (I know, I know, the reason most people believe a particular religion is because they were born into it).
I'm just saying . . . I would expect the average scientist to take the matter seriously, and in doing so, would learn pretty quickly there is no there there. Or at best, you might call yourself a Deist. Anything more personal would have to conflict with your job . . . as I see it.
Posted by: Chasbo | February 11, 2009 10:25 PM
"It's difficult to reconcile the idea of some intangible thing that either is the "mind" or effects the "mind" (the soul) with a science that looks at how the nervous system works to do all the things that we think of as the mind. This is not to say that it is impossible to be both a neuroscientist and a religious person. It would just take some rationalization that I have never encountered or compartmentalization of ideas."
Not necessarily. The mind being a purely physical phenomena fits quite well with the Calvinist view of predestination. I don't share that view myself, but it's not so far-fetched. Other views have been proposed; Leibniz is well-known for his ideas. Modern variants like occasionalism and substance dualism remain fairly common.
Posted by: Matt Springer | February 11, 2009 10:42 PM
But not among serious philosophers.
Posted by: Tulse | February 11, 2009 11:18 PM
Except for all that Declaration of Independence, Revolution, Constitution, Bill of Rights stuff, that is!
Posted by: Nigel | February 11, 2009 11:58 PM
I'll be immodest and quote myself as I was quoted in a newspaper interview about a talk on evolution I gave in a (Protestant) church two weeks ago:
I'm an agnostic atheist, but I don't much care what other folks believe so long as whatever counter-factuals their beliefs entail aren't used as justification for social policy or generally poking their noses into other peoples' business. Unfortunately, over the years I've found that theists have a real hard time avoiding that practice. Dr. Isis may be an exception, and I hope she is: I hold her in high regard.Posted by: RBH | February 12, 2009 2:24 AM
Mousegirl - I suggest you do some research into higher criticism. Bart Ehrman is a readable start into the origins of the bible, although there are numerous others that can also work (Bultmann, Callahan, Price - no books nearby and my library got eaten when my computer crashed). "Eyewitness" accounts is highly inaccurate, the "prophecies" were developed after the fact, and evidence exists that the gospels were written to take passages out of context and make them prophecies to add veracity to the new religion.
Several things (the virgin part in Isaiah for one) were taken from loose translations in the Greek Septuagint that the original Hebrew would not allow (pretty funny prophecy that relied upon (basically) a mistranslation of a word from the original, but then the standard reply is that Yahweh knew it would be that, so he deliberately set things up so that it would be mistranslated to give the correct term). Add in all the other problems with things (Jesus' two geneologies, and sorry, one is not for Mary - both are for Joseph. Harmonize them if you can) and you have a horrible mishmash that needs to be studied in detail. Merely thinking that things are literally true (such as the first Popes in Rome who, by all available accounts and evidence, are fictitious) is the wrong way to go about anything, especially something that most people consider as the most important thing in their lives. Look up the Johanine Comma or the "problem" of pseudepigrapha (sp?). Might give a new perspective on what is original and what has been added or changed, and for what reason.
Posted by: Badger3k | February 12, 2009 2:31 AM
Reading over this thread again I'd like to make a point. If anyone interpreted my comments to mean "religious people can't be good scientists", that's not what I meant, ever. And any atheists here that proclaim to follow the evidence will simply have to give up that line of thinking, because the fact is that there ARE good scientists who are also religious! We can't just deny their existence. :P So, obviously you can be religious and a scientist - someone mentioned compartmentalisation. So given the question "is religion compatible with science?", I don't interpret that "can you be a religious scientist?". For me, the question is "is religion possible to reconcile with science if you refuse to compartmentalise?". And then my answer would be no.
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | February 12, 2009 8:16 AM
Hm... One thing that always baffled me is how people subscribe to certain organized religions, without subscribing to the majority of what that particular variant stands for. Why claim to be something when it's misleading?
Is it out of social convenience?
This is not about Isis's post, I'm just hoping commenters can shed more light on these questions I've been having for a long while. The only explenation I can think of is due to habit and comfort because of having grown up with a particular church/etc, but that doesn't explain people who "convert" to a particular religion when in reality they just make their own derrivative religion, extremely loosely based, yet still claim to belong to the religion they took their elements from, in spite of having as little to do with it as a wide range of other religions/variants.
I hope my comment isn't too meta or something :-/
So, anyone?
Posted by: Rr | February 12, 2009 8:33 AM
Hm... One thing that always baffled me is how people subscribe to certain organized religions, without subscribing to the majority of what that particular variant stands for. Why claim to be something when it's misleading?
This is the nature of catholicism. Also most forms of Judaism (most in terms of numbers of people). Even though the Pope would probably disagree, it is not uncommon at all for almost every catholic parish/congregation to ignore/disagree with a significant subset of the central dogma.
This is also, I think, where a large (the largest?) part of internal conflict in the organization occurs.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 12, 2009 9:08 AM
UnlikelyGrad: Ah...but you can only take the scientific method so far on ice cream flavors.
...and here you confuse "can" and "do".
UnlikelyGrad: But if I walk in and look at the display case and say, "If I don't have Winter White Chocolate today, I'm going to die!"...how is that scientific?
It isn't. And even if you have severe cravings due to pregnancy (with apologies to anyone now suffering), it generally is incorrect to conclude you would die; more likely, you will kill someone else instead. To condense down too much math for me to type up (although you may feel free to find my home phone number for extended discussion), this reflects that the cost of more detailed analysis of ice cream preferences seldom is justified by the marginal benefit. Again: "can", versus "do".
UnlikelyGrad: I always try to start out logically, so I took a couple of career tests. My #1 career, according to the tests? Tech writer. Now I've done a bit of tech writing in my time, and I'm really not too bad at it. I'm sure I would have become a very competent tech writer had I pursued that as a profession. Alas, there was major one problem: I hate tech writing.
Which suggests the tests were focusing on Ability, not Inclination. Helps to know what's being measured, and that there may be more than one input to measure.
I suspect a combined DAT/DIT might have some use.
UnlikelyGrad: The point I'm trying to make is that there are decisions in life for which logic doesn't always provide the best answer.
Strictly speaking, Science doesn't provide answers. It measures them, and collects the best.
From the standpoint of the methodology of science, it does not matter whether Dr. Isis gets inspired to her next hypothesis by drinking too much coffee, watching an apple fall by moonlight, tickling Little Isis's tummy, a carnal encounter with Mr. Isis, or having a vision of a Seraphic choir delivering the answer inscribed on golden tablets. All that matters is how well the hypothesis describes the evidence. (From the standpoint of Science as an anthropological practice, the last might also involve some ethics questions of co-authorship for publication; this, however, I would consider a point merely incidental from the stance of the core methodology.)
I suspect the "too much coffee" approach is the one which anecdotally has had the widest degree of success so far, contributing to its frequent imitation. However, I'm not sure if any formal studies have been done. =)
Posted by: abb3w | February 12, 2009 10:29 AM
I hold entirely with Stephanie (#53, #74, and here) and leigh #103. Scientists are atheists, agnostics, deists, and theists of all flavors. It's life. The fact that any one person (or several) can't understand or reconcile another person's way of thinking or living means, to me, a lack of imagination or experience - as in 'walk a mile in my shoes.'
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 12, 2009 10:43 AM
Wow. Extrovert Scientist, it's obvious you don't work in biology. Maybe you ought to have a little more respect for your colleagues.
Expelled is based on the premise that you cannot believe in God and modern biology. The whole movie is about how evolution did not happen, biologists are fabricating evidence, and Darwin was responsible for the Holocaust.
If Ben Stein and his producers could believe in both God and science, they would have made a very, very different movie. And that movie wouldn't have been an inflammatory pile of propaganda, wouldn't have been marketed to fundamentalist churches, and wouldn't have been an embarrassment to everyone involved.
Posted by: rye | February 12, 2009 11:05 AM
Hi Isis, I continue to appreciate your courage in blogging about your science and your faith! Please tell me if this is in any way offensive (Lord, don't let me be a spammer), but I've been blogging on the same topic and I think (hope) you'll appreciate today's post (at anneminard.com). It quotes several mainstream faiths advocating mutual respect between religion and science. I think this is important work, and I see you as part of it. Cheers, Anne
Posted by: Anne | February 12, 2009 11:48 AM
S. Fox: "Scientists are atheists, agnostics, deists, and theists of all flavors. It's life." Of course that's true, BUT NOT THE POINT! Anybody, and scientists in particular, can be inconsistent all that you and they want as long as they don't try to publish it on peer review journals while trying to make an honest living of it.
The point is also that we as humans, can be the object of study by science, and that includes behavior, emotions, believes, individuals and societies. That's where religion collides with science and why the Ken Millers of the world don't publish peer review articles on subjects where their religious believes are involved in some or other way.
Cheers,
Posted by: Im curious | February 12, 2009 11:57 AM
I haven't read the whole comments thread, but here are a few observations from the point of view of Teh Humaniteez.
But first of all, a Public Service Announcement from a fellow Roman Catholic: There is actually HUGE potential for making the church more open to women, women clergy, and women in positions of responsibility. Since Vatican II, we've already had choir girls, we regularly have women giving readings at mass and women distributing communion. The hospital chaplain in Edinburgh is female. So the basis for feminising Catholicism is there. And we can take it to the next level very soon because there is a huge shortage of priests. As a consequence, more and more parishes find themselves with Deacons and lay leaders, some of whom will be, surprise surprise, ... female! As Catholics, we can embrace everybody who feels called to service in the Church, no matter what gender.
To return to your scheduled programme: Using science as in "experimental science" to look at religion will only give you at most 10% of the whole picture.
It has long been accepted by Catholics (and was taught to me in Catholic religious instruction) that the Bible is a collection of people's experiences of God, written by humans. (That would explain the contradictions and divergences between gospels.) So there is relatively little point in ascertaining whether Jesus really did walk across water - the real issue is what this says about the relationship people had with Jesus, and about their view of Jesus.
You get that by applying the tools of literary scholarship and using careful interpretation.
Im curious said: "why the Ken Millers of the world don't publish peer review articles on subjects where their religious believes are involved in some or other way."
Ever heard of an academic discipline called "theology"? Theologians (not all, but some) have sound methods, too, although not necessarily Popperian. There's more. You can apply narrative theory to religious texts. Search for common themes. Study the political and social history of the Church. (If you want to be all sciency, you can also play House MD and diagnose St Hildegard of Bingen with migraine.) Theologians and scholars of religion have been known to do all of the above. Heck, they have even pointed out conflicts of interest / dogma between the Pauline letters and the gospel writers, inconsistencies that were probably caused by internecine strife in early christianity. They have written eloquently on the effect that historical comparative bible studies have had on their own beliefs, and they have been sensitive to (and published about) unresolved contradictions.
But most importantly, a lot of religion boils down to personal experience of something that people interpret as divine. This experience, this belief is by definition something that cannot be proven, it has to be felt. At the point of experiencing, belief in a Higher Power does not conflict with science. It's when we start extrapolating on what the Higher Power can and will do that we may come into conflict with science, and it's up to practising scientists to negotiate this mine field. I'm happy to see that the Goddess shares my utter disdain for the (to my mind blasphemous) God of the Gaps theology and instead prefers to draw moral consequences for her research, work and life (do unto others, respect your participants, etc.).
Posted by: perceval | February 12, 2009 6:02 PM
#121 "Ever heard of an academic discipline called "theology"? ..."
Thanks for illustrating my comment at 120.
Cheers,
Posted by: Im curious | February 12, 2009 11:35 PM
Me But if I walk in and look at the display case and say, "If I don't have Winter White Chocolate today, I'm going to die!"...how is that scientific?
abb3w It isn't. And even if you have severe cravings due to pregnancy (with apologies to anyone now suffering), it generally is incorrect to conclude you would die; more likely, you will kill someone else instead... this reflects that the cost of more detailed analysis of ice cream preferences seldom is justified by the marginal benefit. Again: "can", versus "do".
LOL about killing someone else...I have to agree with you on that. But that's just nitpicking; I was describing the sensation that causes me to be dissatisfied with all but one choice, even though some of the rejects have been favorites-to-die-for in the past. (Alas, this phenomenon is not limited to pregnancy for me.)
By your explanation of science--that it measures answers and collects the best--I make this choice scientifically. My mind measure the possible choices, collects the data that only one particular flavor will suit me today, and chooses that as the best answer. But I would find it ridiculous to claim that this is science, because science measures data in a logical fashion, and there's no logic involved in the measurement here.
How would you involve math? **is curious to see abb3w run error analysis on my Baskin-Robbins behavior**
Which suggests the tests were focusing on Ability, not Inclination.
Nooo. The tests did not in any way measure my ability to write. How could they? The questions focused, instead, completely on my inclinations. FWIW, somewhere on one of my top-10 lists was "plumber". Now, I think I would be a reasonably good plumber; I've tackled some pretty heavy-duty plumbing projects on my own. But this career, too, would make me miserable. The inclination this particular test assessed was that I like to work with my hands. It assessed that correctly. The ability also exists. However, the thought of being a plumber just doesn't float my boat.
In other words...I see you drawing the conclusions you want to draw about the situation because they would support your hypothesis. I think you need to collect some more data before you consider your experiment a success. :-)
From the standpoint of the methodology of science... All that matters is how well the hypothesis describes the evidence.
Well, here is my hypothesis: my religion makes me a better person.
And here's the evidence: I am, by nature, a solitary and selfish person. My religion has caused me to be involved in charitable acts in which I would otherwise not engage. It has prodded me to reach out to people I would have otherwise not befriended. It has given me the motivation to become more patient, kind, and forgiving. It kept me from committing suicide when I was a depressed teenager. It encouraged me to give my husband one more chance when he was suffering from severe depression. (I was ready to leave--and yes, we did get counseling, he recovered, and our marriage is much stronger as a result.)
But go on, scoffers. Tell me I'm a nitwit for believing in God. Say I'm a fool for believing in miracles. Frankly, I don't care. I've seen enough miracles in my own life: the biggest one is that the arrogant, selfish, vindictive person I used to be has turned into a decent human being. And that's evidence enough for me.
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | February 13, 2009 3:05 AM
#114: Hm... As a scientist who's considering converting to liberal Judaism (partner's Jewish), here's some thoughts:
1. You join not just a religion but a community, a family - not everyone has these outside religion.
2. Yes, maybe I cherry-pick - but that's because I don't believe (and nor do most of the liberal/reform Jews I know) in the literal truth of the 'sacred texts'.
3. I do agree that religion causes suffering. But, I also have respect for religion because I think it has played a huge part in the evolution of human society. Perhaps we are moving towards a stage where religion is no longer required, but I don't think people will be happy without spirituality of some sort (see 4)
4. I think we are built to believe in something, and most people need to on some level, and likely always will - a liberal religion that reflects generally-agreed ethics is a pretty good choice for most people.
5. Honestly, when it comes down to it, shouldn't all scientists be agnostics? (NOT atheists, I consider that a religion too, albeit a more scientific one if you take the others literally). And in the absence of not being sure, you have to pick a way to live your life that you think is positive for you, your family, and others.
6. If you accept the premise that some form of spirituality is natural (at least for some people), then is it not better we make use of (and adapt where necessary) institutions which, albeit (highly!) fallible, have accumulated a lot of experience and knowledge, than some of this New Age anti-technology nonsense that seems to be on the increase as a replacement for traditional religion?
Anyway that's enough for now - thanks Isis, don't let any negative responses put you off posting!
Maggie.
Posted by: Maggie | February 13, 2009 8:45 AM
Maggie - Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any god. By this definition most agnostics are atheists. I'll happily admit that I can't be sure god doesn't exists. Nor can I be sure I exist. Or you. But there's a lot more evidence for me and you existing than there is for any of the gods. So, I'm an atheist. I'd be very interested in knowing what you mean by calling atheism a religion. For me "religion" entails a complete worldview with associated rituals and holy scriptures, and usually (but not always) containing some sort of god concept. Atheism is not a worldview, if you asked about my worldview I'd say I'm a humanist.
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | February 13, 2009 10:31 AM
UGrad: "Well, here is my hypothesis: my religion makes me a better person."
This is mine: "It is good to be involved in charitable acts, reach out to people and make friends, be patient, kind, and forgiving..." Many screechy monkeys (SMs, like me) around here would subscribe that, I guess. Thus:
i) religion can be good (most, if not all SMs, accept this).
What we argue is:
a) It comes at a price, in many cases too high.
b) You don't need it to be good. (May be in your particular case you do, but not in general)
c) Within the frame of Science (all of it) is actually detrimental. (Again, this doesn't mean that you can not be a good scientist, or even the greatest contributor to knowledge ever, only that your field of action will be limited)
I think that acknowledging the points above leaves room for religion, a good one that nobody would complain about.
Cheers,
Posted by: Im curious | February 13, 2009 11:49 AM
UnlikelyGrad: By your explanation of science--that it measures answers and collects the best--I make this choice scientifically. My mind measure the possible choices, collects the data that only one particular flavor will suit me today, and chooses that as the best answer.
That does not necessarily make it scientific, due to the formal use of "best" in science. It may come to the same conclusion anyway... and with substantially lower computation cost.
As an aside, picking the flavor for the day is closer to "engineering" than science. The "science" would simply be about understanding how you will react to a given flavor; once you use understanding to make "choice" with "purpose", you move into engineering.
UnlikelyGrad: But I would find it ridiculous to claim that this is science, because science measures data in a logical fashion, and there's no logic involved in the measurement here.
In part because most people don't know their own minds very well, and thus you might find further reflection counterproductive to your happiness (doi:10.1177/0146167293193010). However, I'm not saying you DO use science to gather the understanding for making the decision. I'm saying it CAN be gathered that way. Again: "can", versus "do".
UnlikelyGrad: How would you involve math? **is curious to see abb3w run error analysis on my Baskin-Robbins behavior**
Assuming some Insane Billionaire gave a sizable grant to MadScientist to study the ice cream preferences of UnlikelyGrad (with enough allocated to bribe co-operation out of the research subject), MadScientist would collect the evidence (how UG rates enjoyment of teaspoon samples of each flavor on varying days, ambient temperature, time since last meal, internal circadian cycles' position, what you say you feel like ordering, what you order on what date, what you get, how you rate your enjoyment after eating it, EEG readings before-and-after, etc.), come up with various models of how it fits together, and see which model is "best" under Minimum Description Length Induction.
The benefit of such analysis doesn't seem significant enough to make a grant likely. However, it could be undertaken.
UnlikelyGrad: The tests did not in any way measure my ability to write. How could they?
Indirectly. Writing ability (or more importantly, capability) usually correlates to general verbal ability; the SAT has been testing that for years.
UnlikelyGrad: However, the thought of being a plumber just doesn't float my boat.
Note that the thought of being a plumber is different from the experience.
UnlikelyGrad: In other words...I see you drawing the conclusions you want to draw about the situation because they would support your hypothesis.
Probably. I'm also basing it on my own experience with singularly unhelpful diagnostic tests, which were aptitude based. I'll note that science does allow for outliers and unmeasured variables. You may be the former, or the latter may have also been involved.
However, my next revised hypothesis would be that the test recommendations are based on what some daft theorist thinks makes sense, rather than analysis of actual data. =)
UnlikelyGrad: Well, here is my hypothesis: my religion makes me a better person.
From the standpoint of both yourself and society, and given the simplistic alternative model of "no alternative moral foundation", that is extremely likely. However, that doesn't indicate whether some other religion might not lead you to be a better person than your present one.
I'd note science isn't ready to replace religion in many areas, especially morality. This is in part because the math in the social sciences is substantially more difficult than mere physics, and in part (IMHO) because morality has been mostly left to philosophers who are more interested in listening to themselves talk than in actually getting answers.
UnlikelyGrad: I've seen enough miracles in my own life: the biggest one is that the arrogant, selfish, vindictive person I used to be has turned into a decent human being. And that's evidence enough for me.
While certainly desirable, it hardly qualifies as miraculous, since the effect may be described within natural law, and thus is neither above, contrary, or outside natural law.
Not that that detail is one to ditch your religion over; as you note, you're a better person with your religion.
Posted by: abb3w | February 13, 2009 1:04 PM
The conflict is between scientific method / methodological naturalism on the one hand, and belief in the supernatural on the other.
If you ignore the supernatural claims of religion (as the vast majority of religious people do,) there's no conflict...but there's also no religion. Religion without God is just Ethics. (Really really bad ethics, by the way, unless you toss out all the unethical bits.)
You can't have it both ways and claim semantic consistency. If methodological naturalism is the proper way to examine truth-claims about the world, then give up the claims about God. If you think faith works as a way to evaluate a truth claim about the world, fine, have it your way...but then don't plan to rebut other obviously false but faith-based supernatural claims. (e.g. "God will heal my child's perforated appendix without antibiotics or surgery." or "God commands me to kill you.")
Posted by: NeuroDude | February 13, 2009 6:35 PM
I don't identify as a Catholic anymore, but my interest in science largely began at catholic school. Science was always held in high regard by the church that I experienced.
Posted by: chris | February 14, 2009 10:52 AM
abb3w@#127--
I would be willing to bet that the major ice cream manufacturers have invested significantly in double-blind tasting, both for product development and for quality control. Your "insane billionaire" scenario, I would argue, is not so far off as to require either insanity or billions. And yes, the systematic approach of psychophysics allows us considerably more reliable results than simple subjective evaluation; "people don't know their own minds very well" is a tremendous understatement.
We can and do scientifically evaluate taste, love, and religious behavior. There will probably always be those who don't want to know the answers, but to me there can be no more fascinating topic than what we do, and why we do it. And one of the beautiful things about it is the ever-growing pile of questions, if we allow ourselves to look at them. If one answer to "why did you scientifically examine X?" is "because of my religious belief", then we can all benefit from that person's religion. But scientists would do well to emulate toddlers at times, and keep asking "why?" (has Little Isis reached this point yet?). In this case, "why do you have that religious belief?" is a perfectly reasonable question, and one which has been scientifically explored at least since William James. And it is not enough to introspect; people, as noted above, don't know their own minds very well.
Posted by: Anon | February 16, 2009 9:38 AM
Eh, the only reason I required an insane billionaire was for a large grant to specifically investigate the preferences of UnlikelyGrad.
Again my point: it's not a question of whether we can do it via science, as whether we do.
Posted by: abb3w | February 20, 2009 11:56 AM
So, Do you think the 9 year old rape victim should have been forced to give birth?
Posted by: monson | March 5, 2009 5:38 PM
FWIW, I doubt very much that in actuality your "faith influences how we conduct experiments with human research volunteers." It seems much more likely to me that your faith provides you with an eloquent means of framing what you already believed about how to conduct experiments with human research volunteers. Otherwise, I would ask, how do you know that you should follow those parts of your faith, but not the parts that say homosexuality is evil?
I, for one, despite being about as irreligious as they come, am rather fond of 1 Corinthians 13:11. I've yet to come across any other quote that states that idea so poetically yet so succinctly. I love it, and I try to live by it.
However, that verse did not influence me to think that way; I already thought that way, and the verse merely helps me to crystallize and remember the idea.
Of course, I suppose I can never know exactly what is in your head, but it seems to me that, excepting fundamentalists, the vast majority of religious people decide on what is right and wrong independent of their faith, and then just use their faith to frame it. Which is not harmful in and of itself, though I do feel it creates an unnecessary risk of losing track of right and wrong (i.e. the risk of a believer becoming a fundamentalist or inadvertantly providing cover for fundamentalism)
Posted by: James Sweet | July 14, 2009 1:55 PM