No sign yet that the science-and-religion debate is heating (or, as the Brits say, hotting) up in the public sphere, but a continuing and expanding dialog on the subject in EOS has been brought to my attention. What started as an appeal to include some philosophy in NASA's mission planning has morphed into an exploration of just how cozy scientists should be with those more concerned with matters more spiritual.
It all began back in early 2005, when Robert Frodeman, a professor of philosophy and religion at the University of North Texas, wrote an essay (PDF) on "Space Policy and Humanities Policy" for the American Geophysical Union's weekly newsmagazine. He was following up on Bush Jr.'s 2004 call for new missions to the Moon and Mars, expeditions that would, in the words of NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, seek "answers to profound scientific and philosophic questions."
According to Frodeman,
It is a truism that our interest in space expresses fundamental
aspirations of the human spirit. Even the appeal to scientific curiosity as the reason for
research is but another expression of the traditional philosophic and religious search for
truth, the desire to understand the deep nature of things. Scientists today are still the heirs of Kant, who uttered the cry sapere aude-- dare to be wise. It is curious, then, that we rarely consult with those specifically trained in and devoted to matters of the human spirit in the design and implementation of space policy.
He goes on to lament that we should have treated the International Space Station as "a humanities laboratory," which would mean "bringing scholars in history, politics, philosophy, art, music, and religion...."
NASA actually anticipated Frodeman's argument, having hired avant-garde performance artist Laurie Anderson as its first artist in residence in 2003. But that's beside the point. It was his inclusion of religion that provoked further discussion. The first reply, a short, sharp retort came from one William E. Carter of the University of Florida in Gainesville:
"I cannot think of a potentially more disastrous step than to bring "scholars trained in. . .religion" into the development of our national space policy, as Frodeman advocates. My concerns have nothing to do with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution--I simply think that the potential negatives far outweigh the potential benefits."
That response appeared in the Feb. 7 EOS, and was followed just last week by a lengthier reply from a living, breathing member of the scientific civil service, David C. Garen of the National Water and Climate Center in Portland, Ore.
... what Carter fears is the influence of fundamentalist religion in science, which I would define here as religion in which Scripture is used to trump science ... I do not think, though, that this is the kind of religious influence that Frodeman has in mind. I believe that Frodeman is suggesting that scientists should explicitly consider the deep questions and issues of life that arise out of their work, questions and issues that are primarily in the realm of the humanities, philosophy, religion, and spirituality. By so doing, this will help us better understand the broad significance of science and technology, and it might help guide the course of work and its communication.
We need more such reasonable, sincere, efforts at calming fears and bridging culture gaps. Garen does wander a bit close to the edge of reason by wondering if scientists "can speak in a way so as not to deny, either explicitly or implicitly, at least the possibility of a higher power who somehow has something to do with the universe and its workings." But overall, I think he has the right approach.
We (along with religious people) need to avoid using language that implies the dual fallacy that if we can explain something, then there is no spiritual element involved and that if we cannot explain something, then this must be the supernatural work of God.
...
Unless society believes in science and can feel a connection with it on all levels,
support for it will dwindle, and we will be fighting ideological battles rather than getting
on with our work. It is important for us to acknowledge and respect people's faith
and to be sensitive to the fact that science has often posed challenges to religious
beliefs.
It's also good to see another respected scientific publication dealing with this issue. Let's hope it continues.
- Log in to post comments
"It is a truism that our interest in space expresses fundamental aspirations of the human spirit. Even the appeal to scientific curiosity as the reason for research is but another expression of the traditional philosophic and religious search for truth, the desire to understand the deep nature of things."
Nope. We're monkeys. Curiousity has worked well for us and our cousins. It's got nothing to do with the "human spirit" or a "traditional philosophical and religious search for truth." That kind of thing is simply an ad hoc explanation for something that existed long before philosophy. In other words, it's a just-so story. If someone wants fairy tales on the space station, let them bring along a Mother Goose book.