This might be premature, but it's beginning to look like the debate between believers and scientists is getting some traction in the public sphere again. And that would be a good thing, if for no other reason that it gives us a chance to improve the quality of the discourse. The latest offerings, however, offer little more than "can't we all just get along?"
First, Time magazine delivers in its July 9 edition a profile of Francis Collins on the occasion of his new book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Genome impressio Collins is a former self-described "obnoxious atheist" who stumbled across C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, and, despite the work's twisted logic, decided he could be a disciple of both Darwin and Jesus.
From the Time interview:
At least once a month he receives an e-mail from some lonely post-doc asking advice on being an evangelical scientist. As his renown grew, he moved from sharing his Christian conversion with groups of fellow believers to sitting on public panels where, he says, "I've found myself the sole person saying faith was relevant" to science.
To which I say, "Don't expect too much company any time soon." Stephen Jay Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria," which posits that science and faith are separate attempts to answer different questions and therefore should not necessarily be in conflict, may be more of a non-answer that a viable approach, but at least it trumps the suggestion that belief in the supernatural is in any way relevant to science.
Meanwhile, New Scientist has decided it's time for another kick at the can on its Comment and Analysis pages with a call from Lawrence Krauss, director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University, for less sniping.
The full essay is for paid subscribers only, so here are some excerpts:
... the great successes of our scientific exploration of the universe can tempt us to dismiss anything other than scientific understanding as of secondary importance. But spirituality, and with it religious faith, is deeply ingrained in human culture, and many people rely on their religious convictions to make sense of life. Whatever one's personal views about religion, it is undeniable that scientific understanding alone does not encompass the range of the human intellectual experience.
...
Scientists who fail to appreciate this, and who attack religious beliefs for being unscientific, do their discipline a disservice, not least because such attacks are themselves unscientific. This is why, while I am sympathetic with many of the points he raises, I disagree with Richard Dawkins's unfettered attack on God....scientists go too far when they attack more generally any belief in divine purpose. From a strategic point of view it's a waste of energy. It plays into the hands of those who claim that the scientific method itself is akin to atheism, and it weakens any efforts to speak out against those groups who regularly distort scientific education in the name of religion, preferring to promote ignorance rather than risk any threat to the faith of their flock.
That may be true. But I remain convinced that the scientific method does inevitably require a scientist to reject the supernatural. Call it agnosticism if "atheism" makes you uncomfortable, but holding back on polite but sincere criticism of religion strikes me as hypocritical and ultimately self-defeating. Yes, we've got to place nice with the faithful, but we should be able to call people like Francis Collins on the carpet when he deserves it.
And I see via Uncertain Principles that the subject has even worked its way onto the pages of Physics Today. My my. It will be interesting to see if the debate trickles out any further in the mainstream media, or remains confined to the blogosphere.
- Log in to post comments
Oh, how could you leave out the massive, frozen, three-stream waterfall he came across, which certainly stood for the Trinity? I was thinking of buying his book, but now I changed my mind.
The discussion will heat up again because of the said percentage of scientists who are unbelievers. There is probably a critical mass required because we're talking about arguing with billions of people.
Initially, at least a few (possibly minor) religions will be openly invalidated like astrology by the scientific community. Then the real fun will begin.
Oh yeah. That three-stream waterfall was precious. Glad you cottoned on to Collins before wasting money on the book. Sure is funny what religion will do to a scientist.
Collins is clearly a lost cause, but I find the comments of Lawrence Krauss very disappointing. Why should a scientist, trained to reach conclusions based on evidence, have any respect for the concept of faith? Why should we respect those who believe things to be true in the absence of evidence, or those who compartmentalize things that require evidence from things that do not? Krauss has fallen prey to the notion (correctly rejected by Dawkins) that religion should be exempt from critical analysis simply because it is religion. There is nothing 'unscientific' in requiring evidence. If you want to believe in transubstantiation that is your choice, but please don't ask me to 'respect' the notion that the known laws of the universe will be temporarily suspended on your behalf, or respect you for believing that they will.
Maybe we need to treat religion as a disease as we do with other delusional systems and attempt to use science to find a cure. One day there could be a pill...
But I remain convinced that the scientific method does inevitably require a scientist to reject the supernatural.
I'm not sure I agree. I think it's more accurate to say that the scientific method requires a scientist to reject the supernatural given the available evidence. In principle, at least, new evidence could arise that might require a scientist to accept the supernatural.
Of course, one can define 'supernatural' in such a way that your statement is automatically true, but I assume that wasn't your intent.
Actually, I would define "supernatural" to automatically exclude that which scientists should be concerned about (i.e., the natural world.) I don't think is a particularly unusual or extreme position, but one born of logic.
qetzal:
Every finding of science and reason is provisional, in that it is open to new evidence, so that the point of your statement would seem to be to magnify the uncertainty without actually providing any evidence. Meanwhile, the evidence for the supernatural continues to fail to appear.
Laurence Krauss:
So was slavery.
Koray:
Quintus: People should know when they are conquered.
Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?
wamba, you misunderstood my point. (Which probably means I miscommunicated it.)
I agree that the supernatural should be rejected on a scientific basis. But I don't think it's the scientific method per se that makes this inevitable.
Suppose your definition of 'supernatural' is equivalent to 'that which cannot be assessed by the scientific method.' Is it possibile for something to exist that's beyond the scope of the scientific method? If so, you can't reject the supernatural (by that definition). If not, then you've merely redefined 'supernatural' to mean 'that which does not exist.'
On the other hand, suppose you define supernatural to include things that are amenable to the scientific method (prayer healing, etc.). In that case, the scientific method does not inevitably require rejection of the supernatural, because we can easily imagine scientific outcomes that would support prayer healing. The fact that we do not observe such outcomes in practice is what allows us to reject the supernatural by this definition.
Rather than trying to magnify the uncertainty, I was arguing that it's the actual evidence (or lack thereof) that allows us to reject the supernatural with minimal uncertainty.
All religions are attempts, founded in ignorance and superstition, to explain the universe and man's place in it.
Modern science has taken up that task and done a far better job than any religion could ever hope to simply because it has removed the superstition and replaced it with reason.
The only reason religion remains so firmly fixed in human cultures is the fact that a very large percentage of people alive today were indoctrinated into the mysticism at a very early age. This indoctrination becomes very deeply ingrained in the psyche and is exceedingly hard to overcome. I first rejected religion on logical grounds while in high school but was plagued by recurring emotional fears about the possibility of being wrong for decades after. Even then I was able to distinguish those fears as being the result of the mystical brain washing I had received as a child so I never reverted to superstition. Unfortunately, not everyone has the fortitude to ignore their emotions that way and many, if not most, people will allow their fears to override logic and thus the churches win the day and retain their power base.
With this view of religion, combined with the historical fact that religion has fomented far more evil than good in the world, I have no problem rejecting religious claims out of hand and I see no reason why science should try to be compatible with superstition aka the supernatural.
COSMOLOGY VEDAS forms Interlinks
The Science of Philosophy: Divinity, Vedas, Upanishads, Temples & Yoga
2. Philosophy of Science : Plasmas, Electro-magnetic fields and Cosmology
3. Resource : Reflectors,3-Tier Consciousness, Source, Fields and Flows
4. Noble Cause : Human-Being, Environment, Divine Nature and Harmony
Edit Summary:Cosmology,Cosmogony,Space Science,Philosophy,
consciousness,interlink fields,alternate cosmology,cosmology-vedas,Cosmology
Interlinks,Space Exploration, Knowledge Expansion
THE SPIRIT OF SCIENCE DRAWS INSPIRATION FROM NATURE AND PHILOSOPHY. KEEP UP THE SPIRIT or CATCH_UP THROUH CONSCIOUS PLANE.
THE NATURE FINDS ITS INSPIRATION THROUGH DIVINE FUNCTION OF GOD. CATH-UP THE LINKS
Vidyardhi Nanduri