Natalie Angier is the Pulitzer-Prize-winning science writer for the New York Times, author of Woman: An Intimate Geography and most recently The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science. In a new piece at Edge, she points a finger at the hypocrisy of many scientists who wail and gnash their teeth at superstitious craziness like creationism or astrology, but invent elaborate rationalizations about non-overlapping magisteria when it comes to things like the virgin birth or life after death. A somewhat lengthy excerpt, as I can’t help myself:
In the course of reporting a book on the scientific canon and pestering hundreds of researchers at the nation’s great universities about what they see as the essential vitamins and minerals of literacy in their particular disciplines, I have been hammered into a kind of twinkle-eyed cartoon coma by one recurring message. Whether they are biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, or engineers, virtually all my sources topped their list of what they wish people understood about science with a plug for Darwin’s dandy idea. Would you please tell the public, they implored, that evolution is for real? Would you please explain that the evidence for it is overwhelming and that an appreciation of evolution serves as the bedrock of our understanding of all life on this planet? …
Scientists think this is terrible—the public’s bizarre underappreciation of one of science’s great and unshakable discoveries, how we and all we see came to be—and they’re right. Yet I can’t help feeling tetchy about the limits most of them put on their complaints. You see, they want to augment this particular figure—the number of people who believe in evolution—without bothering to confront a few other salient statistics that pollsters have revealed about America’s religious cosmogony. Few scientists, for example, worry about the 77 percent of Americans who insist that Jesus was born to a virgin, an act of parthenogenesis that defies everything we know about mammalian genetics and reproduction. Nor do the researchers wring their hands over the 80 percent who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the laws of thermodynamics be damned. …
So, on the issue of mainstream monotheistic religions and the irrationality behind many of religion’s core tenets, scientists often set aside their skewers, their snark, and their impatient demand for proof, and instead don the calming cardigan of a a kiddie-show host on public television. They reassure the public that religion and science are not at odds with one another, but rather that they represent separate “magisteria,” in the words of the formerly alive and even more formerly scrappy Stephen Jay Gould. Nobody is going to ask people to give up their faith, their belief in an everlasting soul accompanied by an immortal memory of every soccer game their kids won, every moment they spent playing fetch with the dog. Nobody is going to mock you for your religious beliefs. Well, we might if you base your life decisions on the advice of a Ouija board; but if you want to believe that someday you’ll be seated at a celestial banquet with your long-dead father to your right and Jane Austen to your left-and that she’ll want to talk to you for another hundred million years or more—that’s your private reliquary, and we’re not here to jimmy the lock.
Consider the very different treatments accorded two questions presented to Cornell University’s “Ask an Astronomer” Web site. To the query, “Do most astronomers believe in God, based on the available evidence?” the astronomer Dave Rothstein replies that, in his opinion, “modern science leaves plenty of room for the existence of God . . . places where people who do believe in God can fit their beliefs in the scientific framework without creating any contradictions.” He cites the Big Bang as offering solace to those who want to believe in a Genesis equivalent and the probabilistic realms of quantum mechanics as raising the possibility of “God intervening every time a measurement occurs” [arrrgh! — ed.] before concluding that, ultimately, science can never prove or disprove the existence of a god, and religious belief doesn’t—and shouldn’t—”have anything to do with scientific reasoning.”
How much less velveteen is the response to the reader asking whether astronomers believe in astrology. “No, astronomers do not believe in astrology,” snarls Dave Kornreich. “It is considered to be a ludicrous scam. There is no evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.” Dr. Kornreich ends his dismissal with the assertion that in science “one does not need a reason not to believe in something.” Skepticism is “the default position” and “one requires proof if one is to be convinced of something’s existence.”
Read the whole thing. Scientists who do try to point out that walking on water isn’t consistent with the laws of physics, and that there’s no reason to believe in an afterlife, etc., are often told that this is a bad strategic move — we’ll never win over the average person on the street to the cause of science and rationality if we tell them that it conflicts with their religion. Which is a legitimate way to think, if you’re a politician or a marketing firm. But as scientists, our first duty should be to tell the truth. The laws of physics and biology tell us something about how the world works, and there is no room in there for raising the dead and turning water into wine. In the long run, being honest with ourselves and with the public is always the best strategy.
Update: In the Science Times, George Johnson reports on a conference in which scientists debated how to interact with religion. This was a non-Templeton affair, and most of the participants seemed to be somewhat anti-religion. Videos of the talks should soon be available at The Science Network.
You may not be able to walk on liquid H20, but you can if you add enough corn starch.
Gosh – walking on water and virgin births are against the laws of physics and require miracles? Hooray for progress – what would we know without the wonders of modern science!
I think the last paragraph pretty much sums it up:
“I’d like to think that one of these days we’ll leave superstition and delusional thinking and Jerry Falwell behind. Scientists would like that, too. But for now, they like their grants even more.”
Is it the position of the most intelligent people to dictate public policy? That’s not the premise of Democracy in America at all. (It didn’t seem to work for the Simpsons…) These are sticky subjects, as religion is one of the most important issues to many people—it dictates their lives and their choices in the voting booth. Is it wise to alienate 70% of the taxpayers that fund scientific research? Making this an issue may only serve to enlarge the rift between the average American and academia, and scientists may only end up biting the hand that feeds them.
It could also be that many aren’t as, umm, evangelical with their athiesm.
PS—Congrtulations on your engagement.
Sean said:
Please tell me what parts of human history lead you to believe that starry eyed, ideological mess.
It’s never a good idea to pick a fight with 95% of the world’s population. In the real world, the fact that we have truth on our side will not protect us from burning at a stake….Imagine the New York Times Headline: Science says everything you have ever believed in is wrong and you are all a bunch of idiots. There is no God
Thats the general theory. A more down-to-earth practical argument is…until science figures out a way to provide emotional comfort and spiritual support to the poverty stricken single mothers in crack infested neighborhoods or provide hope to orphened prostitutes in shanty towns maybe we should leave well enough alone.
Or even better…Our government could send a press release to the Arab world: Americas new official position: Allah doesn’t exist and you’re all just ignorant
1.)It’s always better to tell the truth
2.)We know there is no God
3.)Lets tell everyone
I think I’ve heard this type of ideological based logic before.
1.)Democracy is good
2.)Iraq is not democratic
3.)lets make Iraq democratic
Umm, the United States was explicitly founded on a compact that we won’t tell each other what to believe, and we’ll leave belief out of governance. That was never perfectly followed; and lately, some people have been trying to say that evolution cannot be taught in the classroom because it attacks their faith, and that has led to the scientists’ reaction.
This whole thing would be less of an issue if everyone had their own schools and could teach or leave out what they like – but we have public schools financed by everyone’s taxes and what should be taught in those schools is a matter of government.
There is the fact that science is not a matter of belief or opinion but rather of models that are experimentally found to be in accord with reality (fortunately string theory is not yet taught in schools). The correct answer that honors the original compact is to say, believe what you like, science is not here to attack belief but to address reality. In the teaching of science there is no belief being imposed on you. We are teaching you the facts and the well-established theories that interpret them. (For more speculative stuff, you’ll have to go to grad school. That is also why I think it is wrong to talk of something like string theory in public as anything other than elegant speculation.)
The wrong answer is to go after people telling them you ought to believe such-and-such and not such-and-such, at least while you’re funded with taxpayer dollars. That, IMO, is as much in breach of the Constitution as those who want Genesis taught as an alternative to evolution in the public school science classroom.
Good bit. Thanks for posting on it, Sean.
ksh, when you have facts and reason on your side it’s generally better in the long run to just let the chips fall where they may, instead of constructing some elaborate plan to manipulate the tragically ignorant masses out of their tax dollars. I don’t find that most of the masses are that threatened by the atheism of a physicist. I imagine many of them who have their own doubts must find it irregular and even disconcerting to have scientists bending over backward to accommodate a 12th century world-view. “Hey, if even those physicists aren’t so sure about whether or not God exists, who I am to rock the boat…”
Arun:
I disagree with you on two points —
1) Unlike religious precepts, string theory is testable in principle and strives to be logically self-consistent. As such, it is a valid topic of scientific discourse. Whether or not it’s worth all the effort is a separate question.
2) Scientists should be in fact free to discuss issues of fact, including philosophical questions on measurement. So it’s perfectly reasonable as a scientist to say that the reality of Immaculate Conception is crap, just like Lysenkian biology and Lamarckian evolution. It shouldn’t matter how he’s funded, like a doctor paid by Medicare.
I agree with Sean that if scientists are to be professional, they have to be self-consistent on all aspects of reality. In my experience (which may be naive), scientists are hesitant to attack religion because they themselves sympathize with the existential imperative it provides.
Pingback: sysrick.com » links for 2006-11-20
I think this is a good point to concentrate on. The beliefs themselves are often benign enough, seems like nitpicking denying someone their favorite fairy tale. The process necessary for keeping those beliefs, namely the ability (when needed) to suspend one’s rational (and often moral) judgement is not quite that benign always.
An important factor is that small children are indoctrinated with religion and that they are not exposed to proper science education that could allow them to conclude that religion is nonsense until years later, by which time it is too late to undo the indoctrination.
You can let people believe almost everything if you start indoctrinating them at an early enough age. We should therefore focus on telling the truth to children. Children in primary school should be taught the scientific creation story (big bang) , where they came from (evolution, the fact that heavy elements are formed in stars etc.), that we humans are ultimately very complex machines, etc. etc.
Some time ago I read that some schoolboards are against teaching more science in primary school to protect religion. 🙁
Sourav,
I didn’t say string theory is not testable in principle. What I did mean to say is that in a system where
a. government is not supposed to intrude on belief and
b. education is publicly funded
then,
a. in schools, anything that is a matter of belief should not be taught.
b. government money – a.k.a. tax payer money – should not be used to
attack belief.
If scientists do not want to follow these rules, then they are free to do so, but they should not then accept federal money.
-Arun
Or, scientists should work to amend the Constitution. Otherwise scientists attacking religion is as unethical as a politician using government funds and workers for his reelection campaign. Taxpayers do not endorse money for research for these reasons.
Please note, that the courts have established that the Government can ignore religious practice when such practice is not seen to be in the public good.
Be smart and do not further erode the consensus that undergirds this society. There are infinitely more serious problems than whether God exists or not.
-Arun
I do believe scientists owe it to society to teach what the experimental evidence shows to be true and not try to play it down even if it interferes with some people’s religious beliefs. Scientists must back up experiment. None of this: I believe science in as much as I can fit it in with my religiuos beliefs stuff.
However, I am skeptical that stripping some people of all faith and hope is good for them. As ksh95 said, in real life, some people need these things to get by. Until science can provide the needs faith and hope provides these people, I am not so sure we should insist people give these things up. And maybe science can, but until I see that it does I have to claim people need some things science can’t provide.
As Richard Dawkins claims: “Good and evil–I don’t believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil.” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-8,00.html If you forced all people to think like that many would go crazy. Many need to believe in things science says nothing of to function properly. But to water down experimental results to fit some special religious view is a great disservice to the human race.
Hmm, there’s a bit of a straw man in this argument. Those of us who argue for thinking of science and religion as distinct and equally legitimate domains do not dispute that scientific results disprove particular beliefs, such as young-Earth creationism. A personal God who intervenes in daily affairs is not strictly disproved – how could it be? – but does require arbitrary suspension of natural laws.
What I and others say is that religion, broadly defined, does not contradict science. Physics is compatible with a range of metaphysics, not to mention morality. To find ways for religion and science to co-exist does not require intellectual dishonesty or rhetorical strategizing.
George
I think there is a difference between making the case against creationism and going after other religious ideas that one finds unscientific. In the case of creationsim, there was a religious contingent which was actively attacking a field of science and pushing for a particular public policy which would affect us all(namely removing evolution from public education). It is then imperative to defend evolution and protect a sensible public policy. I don’t really see such a direct threat from people believing in angels, or whatever. So making a big spectacle about the impossibility of the virgin birth would be like picking a fight against something you don’t like but isn’t really causing any trouble. I don’t think such a “preemptive strike” helps anyone.
I agree absolutely that the public should be educated not to believe in things for which there is no evidence, and which, when put to experimental test, result in disaster. As scientists, we should set an example and never support superstition.
Right, Sean, please drop a line to Mark Trodden asking him to stop endorsing the Guardian, the sole raison d’etre of which is to purvey *the* most thoroughly debunked and pernicious superstition in history — that the working class is “oppressed” by the bourgeoisie. I warn you that it won’t be easy — you know what people can be like when they are separated from cherished fantasies……
Why do you assume that all religion (Christian especially) is literalist fundamentalism? Is there any room for metaphor and myth in your worldview? Many great religious thinkers do not expect Scriptural stories to be taken as literal “scientific” truth. The stories are not there to tell us something about the cosmos, more likely something about ourselves in relation to the cosmos.
Religion is not some sort of “failed” science. It is not something that has to be proved or disproved by the scientific method, any more than art or music have to be proved or disproved by the scientific method. When you enjoy a concert, do you have to “prove” that you have been made more happy by a scientific analysis?
By believing the literalist fundamentalists and using them as an example for all religion, you give their world-view more power.
“The laws of physics and biology tell us something about how the world works, and there is no room in there for raising the dead and turning water into wine. In the long run, being honest with ourselves and with the public is always the best strategy.”
But scientist don’t. AKA gloabal warming…..Don’t show corelations as proof, and don’t use words like consensus. The consensus is that God does exist.
It seems to me a little absurd to criticize scientist for not jumping on things like virging birth or walking on water. The whole point of these miracles is that they are, precisely, miracles. They are once in a lifetime occurances that take place by divine intervention. I don’t think science has anything to say about that: a non-reproducible, one time event that is by definition outside the natural realm. Evolution is an entirely different game, as it concerns the development of species in a natural way. It can (and has) been tested.
It would be unscientific to claim miracles cannot occur, since by their very definition their occurance is divine and not natural in origin. You should feel free to NOT believe in miracles, and that is certainly the most economical position, but it is not required.
Noname,
But why do these divine interventions happen in the first place? The answer is, of course, that without such divine interventions the religious authorites would lose power.
The Ten Commands were given to Mozes by God in a divine intervention, because Mozes was losing his authority over his people. And Saddam had stockpiles of WMD, because Bush wanted to invade Iraq. And just after the war we were hearing about miraculous scenarious according to which all the WMD had been moved to Syria. 🙂
I have a lot to say about this, so I’m sorry in advance if this is kind of rambling:
In this kind of discussion there’s (at least) three distinct types of religious claims that (in my view) ought to be considered separately.
1) Claims that we can actually go out and test with an experiment: e.g., The claim that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
2) Claims that we *can’t* test empirically, but only because they happed a long time ago and weren’t likely to leave much physical evidence: e.g., Jesus rose from the dead.
3) Claims that couldn’t be tested even in principle, because they don’t have anything to do with the physical world: e.g., people have souls, God exists, etc.
Believing things of type 1 is totally incompatible with the scientific method. If you’re determined to cling to your beliefs in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary, you can’t do legitimate science. And furthermore I’d say this sort of thinking in the general public has already proven itself to be a threat to the practice of science, and to science education especially. So scientists have a vested interest in opposing this sort of claim.
The second kind of claim (in short, that miracles happen) is a bit different. Here people aren’t objecting to the idea of testing specific claims with evidence, they’re claiming seemingly universal scientific laws can in some instances be broken. At first glance, this would seem incompatible with how science is done, but if strict enough limits are imposed on how often miracles happen, it doesn’t really make any practical difference. On the one hand, if you’re willing to look at any surprising experimental data and say “eh, maybe it was a miracle”, then you’re not going to make it too far as a scientist. On the other hand, a person could believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, and even that God could make someone rise from the dead today “if he wanted to”, and as long as they’re willing to assume God *doesn’t* want to they’re going to expect the laws of physics to be followed just the same.
Whether you assume the laws of physics apply all the time, or just that they apply all the time except for a few specific incidents that happened a couple thousand years ago, doesn’t really make much difference as far as your ability to do or to appreciate science. In fact, there have been plenty of highly successful scientists who believed the latter belief — and there are millions of people in the world today who genuinely believe science works while still maintaining that there were a few instances a thousand years ago where it clearly didn’t work. Even if most scientists find these beliefs kind of nutty, isn’t it worth keeping those millions on our side? Scince needs the support if the public a lot more than it needs people to admit that the laws of physics still apply even if you’re Jesus.
The third kind of religious claim is different still. First, some people may object that claims like “God exists” are open to empirical investigation, but unless you assume God is tampering with the world in ways that violate the laws of physics (in other words, the aforementioned miracles) then I don’t see how this is the case. If someone believes that God somehow picked the laws of physics, created the world, and then sits back and lets it all unfold, then this sort of a God is automatically consistent with everything we see. (Even if we somehow determine that the universe is cyclic or otherwise eternal, someone could still claim that God had created it at some point and allowed it to evolve both forwards and bakwards in time. Or that he created all moments in time at once and just structured everything in such a way that it looks like things proceed from one moment to the next by the laws of physics. Or many other equally bizarre but utterly untestable philosophical hypotheses.) The existence of this kind of God is at least compatible with everything we see. So what’s the harm in people believing in him, if they’re still going to believe the same things about the “real” world as any scientist?
I could go beyond that, though, and argue that it’s just as sensible to believe in that sort of God as not. The obvious objection is Ockham’s Razor — but I’d argue that the by far the best support for Ockham’s razor is empirical, so who’s to say it’s even applicable to non-empiracal questions. What I mean is this: believing a priori that “we shouldn’t postulate more than is necessary” isn’t any more justified than believing “God exists.” The thing that elevates Ockham’s razor (at least in the eyes of scientists) is that it *works*. If you propose that something exists even though there’s no evidence for it, and then someone figures out a way to *test* whether it exists, then usually you end up being wrong. This is an observable fact about the world. But we can’t say “believing in undetectable gods is usually wrong” because we can never determine the truth or falsehood of such a claim from empirical data, not even once.
One could object that it’s irrational to believe something for no reason (and what reason could there be other than evidence?) but ultimately everyone believes *some* things without evidence, since without any beliefs at all you’d have no basis for identifying “evidence” in the first place. I mean, even scientists have to start from a few core beliefs, like “my senses are reliable”, “my memory is reliable”, “inductive reasoning is legitimate means of reaching a conclusion”, etc. I’d argue that the reason these beliefs don’t need justification is that we’re hardwired to believe them from birth (i.e., that it’s only *changing* your fundamental beliefs that needs to be justified.) But this is philosophy, not science — I can’t do an experiment to prove that my core beliefs are any better than yours. And if we only disagree about some things that aren’t observable anyway, what does it matter?
Of course, I’ve skipped a whole category of religious claims, namely claims about morality. Here I think we’d all agree that what people believe does matter. But I take what I consider to be a pragmatic point of view: if someone believes in treating people with kindess and compassion, what does it matter if they’re doing it because Jesus or Muhammad said so, or just because they think it’s nice? Of course, there are some fairly widespread religious beliefs on morality that I don’t agree with: E.g., I don’t think that someone is immoral or sinful just because they happen to be gay. Of course, there are plenty of religious people who agree with me, but nevertheless I’m sure some people would argue that if everyone stopped believing in religion, the treatment of homosexuals in the world would improve. But even if that’s true, you’re going to have a lot more luck getting people to support gay rights (or whatever issue you feel strongly about) by appealing to their religious values that you agree with than by telling them the whole thing is bull.
We can talk about fuzzy, feel-good, noninterventionist forms of religion until the cows come home — and we have! And those cows are sure glad to be home. But the kind of religion in which the overwhelming majority of religious Americans believe involves miracles — Jesus rising from the dead is the most obvious one, but most people believe in the power of intercessionary prayer, for example. 2000-year-old folk tales of the supernatural are things that no scientist should have any trouble proclaiming as purely fictional — but they are often reluctant to do so, if the folk tales are labeled “religion.” And the efficacy of prayer has no better empirical support nor theoretical basis than the efficacy of astrology. But we impose a double standard when we talk about it, for fear of offending people. I personally think that’s a mistake, and we should be more honest.
Well, I don’t think I entirely agree. Jesus rising from the death is not just a folk tail- it is one of the fundamental articles of faith of the most popular religion in the world. As an article of faith, you either believe it or you don’t, but noone should feel any more entitled to force me to disbelief this miracle than I should feel entitled to force you to believe in it. In the end, such a miracle is, as you claim, non-interventionist religion, and thus science has absolutely nothing to say about it. That is already enough for some people to think that the problem is therefore not worth thinking about, but that’s their own prerogative.
Just for fun, I will throw out there one of the reasons why I think science and miracles are not incompatible. Free will. If one believes there is nothing but natural laws, then free will is, by definition, non-existent. It seems to me that for free will to be truly free, it must exist outside the natural world, yet be able to influence it, and that comes awefully close to a miracle. I will gladly admit that not believing in free will is as much of an option as believing in it, but I sure think I am writing this out of my own volition, though this is nothiing but an article of faith. It is not possible for me to prove I am free, anymore than it is for me to prove that I am not.
So, if we apply the same logic we did to God to free will, it seems to me that people who decry that God does not exist because there is no evidence for its existance should also decry the concept of free will. Interestingly, this is a much more important problem from a practical point of view, since one then runs into the usual problem of whether it is ethical to punish/reward behaviour when behaviour is completely predetermined. At this point usually someone sais something about indetermincy in quantum mechanics, but I fail to see how random out comes are any more free-will than predetermined ones. The point is, if we have natural laws, and nothing else, then I just do not see how truly free will can exist.
The efficacy of third-person prayer has been disproven as assuredly as the predictive claims of astrology have been disproven.
However, it’s also true that many people find personal strength and support by praying themselves. If they find their support and inspiration that way rather than by whatever way you do it, what’s wrong with that?
It is true that it’s tough to stand up in front of certain religious audiences and say that (for instance) the stories in Genesis are mythology. I’ve done this, and have gotten yelled at for it (see, for example, this blog post of mine : Creationism : to engage or not to engage?). On the other hand, in that talk, I was talking about how one can be a good science without utterly rejecting religion in the manner that this blog and PZ Myers’ blog keeps insisting we must do. While some were openly disgusted that I called the Genesis creation story fiction, others came up to me afterwards and quietly thanked me for what I had said.
Science can’t disprove religion, but it can disprove specific claims of religion.
If you’re some sort of pagan who includes taking inspiration from the stars and the constellations, that’s not something as a scientist I have any problem with. If you insist you can predict what kind of day I’m going to have based on which constellation was overhead when I was born, and which planets are in that constellation right now, you’re wrong, as has been amply shown.
Rather than saying “most of the religous believe stuff incompatable with science, therefore we should be rejecting religion,” it would be both far more productive, and more honest, to consider trying to help those who are religious see that they don’t need to reject scientific claims in order to remain religious at all. I’m not talking about giving in and softpeddaling where things are clearly wrong. But I am arguing that saying things like “what’s the purpose of life” is a meaningless question (i.e. that only scientific questions are meaningful questions) is having the sort of arrogant scientfic blinders on that causes others — common people and academics alike — to think that scientists are so caught up in their own world that they can’t see value in anything else.
Consider that most physicists are men not fully aware of or ready to do anything about the gender imbalince in physics. Do you use that as a reason to argue against physics altogether? If not, then why is your assertion that most (but not all) of the religious conscious reject science a reason to argue against religion altogether?
-Rob