“Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof…”
–(from the Web site of the Center for Science and Culture)
“People of faith are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all the hard-won human attainments that I have touched upon. Religion poisons everything.”
–Christopher Hitchens
A friend quipped recently that the two topics a liberal and a conservative should never discuss together are abortion and health care reform. She should have added the topics of science and religion to her list.
Why do attempts at reasonable discussion between science and religion in our society today range from disastrous to nonexistent? We need to step back and understand the broader context. Why do these discussions fail? How did the contemporary impasse arise? How might we as a society move beyond it?
A little background:
A Bloody Family Feud
Think of it as a family feud running across three generations. The first generation spans from the Greeks through the early medieval period. During this period, philosophy and theology set the terms of engagement. Knowledge for Aristotle and his medieval followers (epistēmē) was created in the image of philosophy. The Latin term for science, scientia, meant any form of organized inquiry. Unfortunately for the birth of modern science, in such a context one couldn’t even begin to make a case for the primacy of empirical observation, much less for quantum mechanics or evolutionary theory as we know them today.
Call the scientists and philosophers of modernity the next generation. The sons and daughters of the late medieval period simply had no choice. The only way they could carve out a space for their new empirical modes of inquiry was to flatly reject the medieval authorities and their assumptions. Thus Descartes proclaimed that everything is open to doubt; Francis Bacon berated the four “idols” of traditional philosophy and theology; and Galileo, somewhat more gently, wrote of The Book of Nature, written “in the language of mathematics,” as separate from the Book of Scripture.
This declaration of independence may have been peaceful at first. But it quickly deteriorated into a war fully as bloody as the French Revolution. Thus Andrew Dickson White rightly characterized the modern period as A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Christopher Hitchens is only reflecting the prejudices of his generation when he expresses his hatred of religion in God is Not Great:
“Religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.”
For the children of the third generation, however—call them postmodern, for want of a better word—the battle to the death between science and religion no longer seems either necessary or productive. Like children who can’t comprehend why their parents and grandparents must fight so much, this new generation has simply discarded the assumptions on which the centuries-long war was based. Thus the last few decades have seen multiple proposals for harmonizing, if not unifying, science and religion. (More on these in future weeks.)
This saga of three generations is crucial for understanding the current cultural situation. Some of the implications are deadly serious. Others come with a touch of irony. It amuses me, for example, to recognize that the much-touted “New Atheists” (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, etc) are not the wave of the future. Instead, this analysis leaves them looking like dinosaurs; throwbacks to an earlier (second) generation attitude toward science and religion.
The Battle Lines Today
So much for intergenerational histories in the abstract; the juicy stuff always lies in the details. When we survey the opposing armies, what do we see?
The forces of science:
Those who start from the standpoint of science fall into three main groups: the New Atheists, who argue that the mere existence of religion is a threat to science and weakens it; the “privately religious” scientists, who argue that their private faith supplements their science, but who spend rather less time talking about how this actually works; and the True Separationists, who argue that the two spheres are, and ought to be, completely independent and have nothing to do with each other.
Relatively few scientists are working constructively to build conceptual bridges between science and religion. (Of course, this makes the few who are all the more important.) Most bench scientists are suspicious of those who call for an integration of science and religion; a new unitary perspective that draws from and learns from both. New Age, Eastern, and some liberal theologians, for example, make such calls, and upon them are heaped the greatest amounts of scorn.
The forces of religion:
Publicly, most American Jews and Christians express interest in the religion-science discussion. In most cases, though, the motivation is defensive; people don’t want anyone to think that their faith undercuts or opposes science in any way. It’s quite another matter to view the discussion as a two-way street—one that might require believers to rethink and reformulate some of the important tenets of their religious tradition.
Learning to Work Together
In the American public square today, it’s hard to find discussions of the interplay between science and religion that achieve what our society most needs: genuine self-criticism on both sides, born of the recognition that both sides will have to do some bending if any sort of truce is to be achieved.
Yet if we do not begin to engage in productive partnerships, how will we address those urgent global issues (such as global climate change) that can be solved only if the sciences and the religious traditions learn to work in tandem?
In future columns, I’ll present specific cases of science-religion confrontation in our culture, analyzing the disasters and searching for cases of constructive engagement.
Next time: Evolution and Creation Fight to the Death... and What Emerges from the Ashes.
Tags: ancient greeks, aristotle, atheism, christopher hitchens, daniel dennett, descartes, nature, new atheists, philosophy, richard dawkins, sam harris
"how will we address those urgent global issues (such as global climate change) that can be solved only if the sciences and the religious traditions learn to work in tandem?"
Doesn't this mean for this important issue religion needs to take the scientific point of view? Science is demonstrating the problem and looking for solutions. Religion is only deciding if they will follow the lead of science, or resist because of belief. I guess you could say much of the problem stems from human greed, and perhaps religion can help on that point. But in America of late religion has been closely allied with the party of the rich and the greed. This particular question might ultimately turn out not to be science vs. religion as much as it is religion vs. other religion.
Every organized body of belief starts with non-provable basic assumptions. Both science and religion have them. (See Book 4 of the free ebook series at http://andgulliverreturns.info)
The book clarifies the assumptions of both Western religions and science. The question is--which assumptions are you most willing to accept. It isn't necessarily that a thinking person will accept both sets of non-provable assumptions or only one set. In the more educated societies such as in the Far East science generally wins out over religion. It is primarily in the West where religion, especially the religions that began in the Mideast, have such a strong hold on people's thinking.
Science is a cat fight of scientists trying to destroy each other's basic assumptions. This weeds out the weaker ones, and makes science progressive. Religion is conservative and in the long run attempts to build constructions where sets of contradictions between religions, and often within one religion, are preserved and people can maintain their beliefs, sometimes for centuries, in spite of the science and in ultimately in spite of human history.
You misunderstand what a basic assumption is. You are writing about the next level of assumptions that the empirical process seeks to prove or disprove. You might start with the assumption that hydrogen and oxygen can make red paint. The empirical science will disprove that assumption--but it is not a BASIC ASSUMPTION. To understand the concept read the suggested books.
Math starts with basic assumptions, such as in Euclidean geometry you assume parallel lines never meet. In science even the basic assumptions are open to question. The greatest advances in science overturn them. In religion basic assumptions must be carefully guarded, even if the process means other people's lives.
"Conservative" religionists (literalists, fundamentalists, creationists) see all atheism and atheists as the same, as essentially evil. "Conservative" atheists ("New" atheists, scientific materialists) see all religion and religionists as the same, as essentially evil. Neither group is capable, given their a priori philosophical commitments, of nuanced thinking; both essentially agree politically while disagreeing theologically. Both groups are critical of one another while being unable to criticize themselves. Both believe that only their way is true, factual, and right, and admit of only one other option, the wrong one - for the New Atheist, religion; for the fundamentalist, atheism. If it weren't for their equally supportive views on the use of state-sanctioned violence (whether rhetorical or physical) to achieve self-righteous dominance over the other, they could be safely ignored while the rest of us moved forward into the 21st century and beyond. Unfortunately, these groups are dangerous anti-intellectual ideologues whose rhetoric cheapens and diminishes the importance and value of scientific and religious dialog in the public square (not to mention actual scientific and theological practice). Liberal and progressive atheists and religionists MUST speak out more often, publically, and explicitly against such polarizing, one-size-fits all views, especially at home and in church, synagogue, mosque and temple. Peace.
I think of myself as progressive and not a fan of the current atheist authors, but conservative anti-intellectual atheist ideologues supporting state sponsored violence don't seem like much of a threat to me. The conservative religionists on the other hand became a lockstep voting block favoring the party of the rich and electing a president who favored elective war that did nothing to help America, but provided a possible avenue for the rich to steal oil. Those conservative religionists are the most supportive segment of our society regarding acceptance of us using torture, and they are unquestioningly in favor of anything that helps the rich get richer, even at their own expense. My personal assesment is they are at least a million times more of a threat than their atheist counterparts.
Possibly. But both Harris and Hitchens have explicitly advocated and supported war on "Radical Islam" (which in their rhetoric equals ALL Islam) even going so far as to excuse torture and the possible "collateral" deaths of millions of innocents as an acceptable if regrettable necessity. They and their supporters are as willing to kill indiscriminately in the name of "No-God" or democracy or what-have-you as the fightin' fundies are willing to kill in the name of God. And the New Atheists claim - unscientifically - to have many more "closeted" followers than is easily discernible through surveys, etc... Hitchens even claims MLK and Ghandi for atheism! It may be true that the religious side of the problem has more experience under it's belt, but the New Atheists sure seem eager to catch up.
Perhaps the Christians are a negative influence on the atheists.
Certainly. One of the New Atheists, Dawkins, has called himself a "cultural Christian," explicitly recognizing a positive influence. Few things are either/or. Christianity has had both a positive and negative influence on the West (and the World). It is fashionable these days, especially among the New Atheists, but also among liberal and progressive Christians, to acknowledge only the negative.
The only way to resolve what the author claims to have resolved is through knowledge. And by knowledge, I mean understanding exactly why we do science and why we do religion, evaluating the truth claims and motivations of each, and coming to a unified understanding of how humans interact with each other and the world.
The author may offer numerous platitudes about this conflict in future weeks, but the core of the issue lies in truth and psychology. Why does religion persistently traffic in fantasy, not to say lies, while attracting belief, and why does science studiously stick to truth while advocating skepticism and tentativity? The reason is psychological, for one jumps to convenient and comfortable conclusions, while the other appreciates human frailty, suggestibility, and fallibility. Science patiently waits for its answers, while religion assumes its wishes already filfilled.
In short, the resolution with come when science fully understands religion.
"Why does religion persistently traffic in fantasy, not to say lies, while attracting belief, and why does science studiously stick to truth while advocating skepticism and tentativity?"
This is a conclusion masquerading as a search for truth, as is the rest of the post.
Why do people persistently oversimplify religious teachings, quests, and goals, and why do they persistently confuse the difference between SCIENCE as such and ScienTISTS, who can be as close-minded, baised, and guided by faulty assumptions as anybody?
The nature of science is scientists police themselves.
We do science because it has been so successful at explaining the development of the universe and everything in it including life and humanity, and leading the way to a wide range of incredible technological advances.
We do not need a reason to do religion. It works like evolution, survival of those best at reproducing and passing their memes down to the next generation. Different religions compete for territory, and those who can reproduce and multiply slightly more effeciently than the competing denominations will eventually dominate the local religious environment.
What? We do science because it's good at explaining things, and religion because the religious are good at sex? The first assertion gets science at least half-wrong (science is about models, not explanations); and the second looks like a really bad summary of Dawkins' equally bad "cultural meme" metaphor, more (bad) philosophy than science, a fact of which Dawkins' seems blissfully unaware. Evolution does not care what is right or wrong, and what is successful within the context of evotion has nothing to do with "explanations."
I meant reproducing beliefs, and passing them on to the next generation. It has nothing to do with sex, and sex often doesn't reproduce religiously speaking because the offspring might go a different spiritual direction. This is reproducing from the evangelical meaning of the word, kind of like Amway, recruiters recruiting recruiters.
"one jumps to convenient and comfortable conclusions, while the other appreciates human frailty, suggestibility, and fallibility"
Religion is, in part, the very study of human frailty, suggestibility and fallibility. Religion must, and over time does, adapt and incorporate scientific discovery. Science needs to do likewise and acknowledge the limits to scientific understanding, even as it strives to expand that understanding. Moreover, simply because something can be done (a scientific inquiry) does not mean it should be (a religious/ethical inquiry). If science and religion could be in dialogue there would be greater advancement in both fields to the betterment of us all.
As long as science is taken seriously, and religion is not taken too seriously.
The idea that writing books and giving lectures have anything to do with swords and cudgels is not only fundamentally silly, it trivializes and validates real violence, a staple of believers' reactions toward nonbelievers.
Your comment is self-contradictory and invalidates itself.
Not to mention your inability to understand metaphor.
I'm not really sure where this article is going. Not entirely sure what a 'Design Theorist' is spectulating (a website is not going to convince me of anything)and that it in some way crosses the impasse between rational and faith based thought. As for the 2nd generations 'The only way they could carve out a space for their new empirical modes of inquiry was to flatly reject the medieval authorities and their assumptions.' Well, I think that had more to do with literary criticism and and a look at the scriptures. As much as many would like to think the Bible is a 'Word of God', a light inspection of the book shows incredible lack of continuity and historical inacuracies that absolutely show the source as less than divine.
As for 'For the children of the third generation, however—call them postmodern, for want of a better word". I have a better word. Post-Apocalyptic. If they don't care about anything, it's certainly not that science can save them because they hang onto a remnant of some Sunday school salvation. We have forgotten God's power to destroy us with floods and plagues. Who cares about that when we can build a bomb, through someone else's science and take out whole countries? And if that doesn't sound familiar, you must have forgotten Christianity's 'Hitchens' predecessor, the iminently wrong Hal Lindsey. Two final things pertaining to Religion and science, and they both include Mr. Lindsey. EVERY generation of Christians (70 at last count) have thought that THEY were living in the end times. At least 69 have been wrong. Not very scientific. Now if we had to alter our economy, or not plant our food, or tend to our children based on the never ending predictions of doom, well, we would be right where we are because doomsday prophets have always been wrong. Always. Which brings me back to the difference between science and religion. When a legitimate scientist announces something, you would be right to assume that, the work can be replicated and the results can be shown over again, or dismissed. When prophecy has been found to be false, the only thing you can depend on is that the time has changed, or the prophet made a mistake..etc.. ad nauseum. I'm not sure what the point of adding Christopher Hitchens' quotes were, other than to actually state some truth in your article.
Disagree with most of your post - the idea that Hitchens' quotes are truth is a notion that a "light inspection" of his book God is Not Great shows to be at the very least inaccurate, perhaps willfully ignorant - but as you say, "a website is not going to convince me [in my case, a comment] of anything." Though there is, I think, a certain continuity between Lindsay and Hitchens; they both have similar "my way or no way" mind-sets.
But I do like your suggestion for a label for "the children of the third generation" - Post-Apocalyptic. Very nice. Has a certain ring to it. And it describes much of liberal/progressive Christianity better than it describes the third generation.
Applause!
Dear Philip,
Greetings! You and I did battle at a science-and-religion conference some years ago ... across a tennis net. I am sympathetic to the view you express here, but skeptical about the generational distinction you attempt to make. One of the chief characteristics of religion is its ability to reproduce its core ideologies even as it evolves. More than any other human institution, religion is conservative. (There is no continuous political, linguistic, or musical tradition to match the lineage of Judaism, Catholicism, or Islam, to name a few.) With that in mind, I challenge you to substantiate your claim that for "the children of the third generation ... the battle to the death between science and religion no longer seems either necessary or productive." Young people who take your classes, I daresay, may be open to such views, but they are nothing like the majority of the American population. What's more the New Atheists, as you must know, are attacking the dominant religions on a global scale, with special attention to the madrassas and similar schools of fanatical indoctrination.
Best regards,
Clay Farris Naff
http://open.salon.com/blog/clay_farris_naff
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.