Science & Theology News was looking for some famous and charismatic scientists to respond to an interview with Noam Chomsky on various issues touching on science and religion. They were able to get Lawrence Krauss to agree, but then they ran out of ideas and ended up asking me. So you have some of the deepest questions we face about meaning and the universe, addressed by someone recently voted the world’s top intellectual, with responses by the author of The Physics of Star Trek and an assistant professor with a blog. What a great world!
You will notice that most of my answering comments are short and sweet. You can take this as evidence that I know how to pack a tremendous rhetorical punch into just a handful of words, or that I was in a hurry as the deadline was approaching. But sometimes I do go on a bit when a nerve is struck, such as this discussion on whether science and religion ever overlap in their respective spheres of interest.
ON STEVEN JAY GOULD AND “NON-OVERLAPPING MAGISTERIA”
CHOMSKY: Steve Gould [was] a friend. But I don’t quite agree with him [that science-and-religion are “Non-Overlapping Magisteria”]. Science and religion are just incommensurable. I mean, religion tells you, ‘Here’s what you ought to believe.’ Judaism’s a little different, because it’s not really a religion of belief, it’s a religion of practice. If I’d asked my grandfather, who was an ultra-orthodox Jew from Eastern Europe. ‘Do you believe in God?’ he would have looked at me with a blank stare, wouldn’t know what I’m talking about. And what you do is you carry out the practices. Of course, you say ‘I believe in this and that,’ but that’s not the core of the religion. The core of the religion is just the practices you carry out. And yes, there is a system of belief behind it somewhere, but it’s not intended to be a picture of the world. It’s just a framework in which you carry out practices that are supposed to be appropriate.
KRAUSS: Science and religion are incommensurate, and religion is largely about practice rather than explanation. But religion is different than theology, and as the Catholic Church has learned over the years, any sensible theology must be in accord with the results of science.
CARROLL: Non-overlapping magisteria might be the worst idea Stephen Jay Gould ever had. It’s certainly a surprising claim at first glance: religion has many different aspects to it, but one of them is indisputably a set of statements about how the universe works at a deep level, typically featuring the existence of a powerful supernatural Creator. “How the universe works” is something squarely in the domain of science. There is, therefore, quite a bit of overlap: science is quite capable of making judgments about whether our world follows a rigid set of laws or is occasionally influenced by supernatural forces. Gould’s idea only makes sense because what he really means by “religion” is “moral philosophy.” While that’s an important aspect of religion, it’s not the only one; I would argue that the warrant for religion’s ethical claims are based on its view of the universe, without which we wouldn’t recognize it as religion.
I was going to say that these guys might be famous, but do they have their own blogs? No! Except, of course, Lawrence was our very first guest-blogger, so that counts for something. And, I remembered, Noam Chomsky actually does have a blog. A funny one that consists of answers to occasional interview questions asked by someone from Z magazine, but I suppose it counts. Man, everybody has a blog these days.
That was a nice piece. It was also nice IMO that it emerged with critical views in Science & Technology News, who are supported by the Templeton foundation, who I assume is a christian apologist organisation.
I agree that ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ is an unsupported idea, which sounds like a variant of dualism, but the same can be said about ‘incommensurable’. In fact, someone observed that in several areas science and religion is opposed to each other. When and if religion backs off all claims about natural observations or that science is fundamentally atheistic, it may be the conflict subsides. But we are a long way from that, and it doesn’t seem to happen ever.
The description of the core of religion as practises are perhaps apt, but it’s disingenious to ignore that beliefs are an important part too. Why else would science be unfairly characterised as atheistic?
Chris, some people prefer to chose ‘ontological materialism’ (the conclusion that the natural world is all there is) because they argue that natural phenomena seems to be behind all observations, and thus they close off the remainder. This theory can’t be falsified, since all observations must be redefined as “natural”.
I believe we can make a better theory. We can’t make theories about supernatural phenomena in the absence of observations that helps us define them. We know however that natural phenomena obeys energy and probability conservation laws. Let’s call the remainder anatural phenomena. The anaturals will include all possible supernatural phenomena.
By testing a massive amount of different systems (for example chemical and gravitational ones) one can confirm or falsify “beyond reasonable suspicion” whether anaturals can be observed as breaking conservation laws. If they aren’t, the best theory will be that they don’t exist. I can’t see why “methodological naturalism” can’t eventually show “ontological materialism’ as a correct theory by observations?! So perhaps I’m going to be a crank. 😉
Doug, apart from naive assumptions about modern cosmology and other scientific questions, your idea that your god rests in the gap of our knowledge isn’t only pitiful, but to paraphrase Krauss: “it is bad theology”.
Eugene, Daryl: How does Buddhism fit into the ideas of religion being discussed? As a religion, it really has no God, as most religions seem to define it. It seems that Buddhism is solely a religion of “practice.” The practice is mainly that of meditation and “right” living. One can follow the practice, attempting to rid the self of all desires and individual consciousness and thereby reach nirvana without even subscribing to the belief in karma or reincarnation.
That is a pretty interesting view, that religion is more about practice than about belief. Practices are, after all, something that people can choose to do or not. If we accept “the practices you carry out” as a working definition of religion, doesn’t that pretty much throw the social taboo against mocking religion out the window?
Larsson wrote:
That God “rests in the gap of our knowledge” is your phrase, not mine. I’m not even sure what you mean by that phrase. My point is that the knowledge of God comes by revelation from God. One must seek it from God through faith and obedience (practice). “Ask and ye shall receive.” and “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”
Doctrine is a belief, or a system of beliefs, accepted as authoritative. The doctrine of Christ is that God lives, is our Father, and that Jesus is His Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Redeemer of all mankind, and that no one can come to the Father but by Him.
The generally accepted doctrine of science, on the other hand, is that all knowledge is from experience, that there is no real understanding other than that based on observed facts, and that there is an unchanging order in things. Thus, we see the opposition inherent in these two doctrinal positions. On the one hand, the knowledge that Peter gained, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, he gained by following the doctrine of Christ, as Jesus immediately pointed out to him, in the presence of all His disciples: “Blessed are you, [Peter], for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.”
However, the accepted doctrine of science is that this conviction of Peter’s does not constitute real understanding, because it is not based on observed fact. Hence, it denies that revelation from an unseen heaven (remember the Cosmonaut’s remark from space in the early days?) qualifies as the kind of experience that can convey knowledge. Nevertheless, the knowledge that Peter obtained was the knowledge that God lives and that Jesus is the Son of the living God, something that he did not see with his natural eyes. Obviously, such knowledge of God is something unobtainable by science as long as the scientific doctrine that “there is no real understanding other than that based on observed facts” is the accepted doctrine.
What this really means is that there can be no privileged view of the facts permitted. The accepted doctrine of science is that observed facts are defined as only those observable by anyone without special qualification, other than that available to any man (woman) through ordinary scientific training. On this basis, the doctrine of Christ that obedience to the commandments of God is a requirement to know the truth about the things of God is totally irrelevant, since such doctrine applies only to the unseen things of God, not to the things we all can see with our eyes and hold with our hands.
Yet both Enoch and Moses testified that they saw the true order of things, not through their natural eyes, but through a higher means. It is Moses’ testimony that he spoke to God face to face(see here), as one man speaks to another, and God showed him the workmanship of His hands, but only a part of it, because his works are without end. Moses was amazed and wanted to understand the purpose of it all and how it was accomplished, but God wouldn’t tell him everything, presumably because it wasn’t expedient at that time. However, he said to him, “Worlds without number have I created…but only an account of this earth and the inhabitants thereof give I unto you…there are many worlds that have passed away, and there are many that now stand and innumerable are they to man, but all things are numbered by me, for they are mine and I know them… And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof, even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
Such knowledge is completely beyond the reach of science. The only way that one may know for oneself that it is true is through religious practice, not scientific practice. Therefore, again I say, the “magisteria” is non-overlapping.
“That God “rests in the gap of our knowledge” is your phrase, not mine. I’m not even sure what you mean by that phrase.”
This is a very common mistake among religious people. In philosophy it’s called “god of the gaps”, or “the argument from incredulity”, or “the argument from incredulity”. ( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html ).
You use it when you say “Indeed, the man of God will always be better off pointing out the scientific weaknesses of the man of science’s own case. … How then can he take the position that there is no God?”. Your entire argumentation supposes that one worldview (science) must show more than the other (religion).
The reason it’s bad theology is that it’s appallingly weak. Whenever a gap in the scientific knowledge is filled, your faith will be weakened. It was weakened since you claim a gap is evidence of your faith. To firm up your theology you have to back off from making any claims about nature, and stop claiming scientists can’t be religious (“the man of science”). Especially since there are many of them who are.
Larsson wrote:
Thank you for clarifying this, but it’s a straw man, because I’m not arguing that the knowledge of God’s existence is founded in the fact that there is no other explanation for some aspect of nature. While one may argue that the wonders of the physical universe are evidence of a divine Creator, evidence is not knowledge. In like manner, discovering the power inherent in the logical relation of numbers, or the fundamentals of physical laws that underlie the order of things, does not eliminate the possibility of intelligent intervention, and a change in the order of things.
Albeit, there is a sense in which man should not presume to think in all things, because there are worlds beyond this world. However, this is a matter of wisdom and discretion. It is not really germane to the epistemological issue of the non-overlapping magisteria. Again, my point is that man cannot answer the religious question, does God exist or not, unless he accepts that there is more than meets the eye in the experience of life. As long as he accepts the doctrine that there is no “real understanding other than that based on observed facts,” and observed facts are to be limited to what the natural eye can behold, then it is impossible for him to discover knowledge that is obtained by the practice of faith and based on the evidence of things unseen by the natural eye.
Peter’s conviction transformed his life, but it was not based on knowledge obtained from witnessing miracles such as healing the sick, transforming chemicals, walking on water, or raising the dead. It was based on a knowledge obtained from a higher source, not from flesh and blood, but from a Supreme Being. This is not knowledge based on a logical argument. It is not a position justified by a gap in empirical knowledge, but it is a position justified by the experience of divine communication, revelation from a Supreme Being.
That such knowledge will never be acceptable to those who adhere to the doctrine that no such thing can exist is not surprising, but neither should it be surprising that no logical argument has power to prevail against it. This is only a consequence of the non-overlapping magisteria, not an indication of lunacy, stubbornness, or weak brains. As you rightly point out, the man of God, and the man of science, are often one and the same. However, in that case, the man of science does not subscribe to the accepted doctrine of science that insists that only facts that can be observed with the natural eye can lead to real understanding.
He knows that to be learned is good, and while he seeks wisdom by earnest study out of the best books and courses he can find, he also seeks it by faith as Enoch, Abraham, and Moses also sought it. He knows that he can learn more about the things of heaven and earth by a few seconds of revelation, than he can learn by studying all the books ever written on the subject. However, it is not given unto man to know all things as soon as he wants to know them, but, by and by, all things will be revealed. In the meantime, he studies things in the earth and beneath the earth, and he seeks a knowledge of things which have been, and things which must shortly come to pass, the wars and perplexities of the nations, the judgments upon the land and a knowledge of countries and kingdoms.
But if a man uses his learning to deny the existence of God, all his learning is vain and is turned into foolishness and folly, because he has cut himself off from the source of all light and truth.
Hence, the non-overlapping magisteria motivates the man of God and science to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and the things of God unto God. He does his best to understand the true nature of space and time, but he also knows that what has been discovered, no matter how difficult to understand in the current context, will eventually be reconciled with what was revealed to the ancient prophets. For instance, he knows that this earth and its heaven were not created in six days, but he also knows that that is how it was explained anciently to a people who were not as prepared to understand things formerly, as we might be today.
Today, God’s revelations to a modern Moses might be more sophisticated, because a modern Moses might be more prepared to understand that when He said that he caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep, when the earth was void and without form, and that His Spirit moved upon the face of the water, because He is God, that he was not referring to the darkness of the night, but to something else, that He was not referring to the “deep” of the sea, but to something else, that He was not referring to “water” as we know it, but to something that ancient people were in no position to understand, so he put it in terms that they could understand.
Anyway, taking this ancient account of the creation and trying to understand it in modern terms of science is useless, unless one knows the mind of God with respect to these matters, and as far as I know, no one does. Yet, by the same token, no one should think that because God revealed the act of creation to ancient people in a manner adapted to their understanding, that He cannot provide a more advanced explanation to a people who today might be more prepared to understand it.
Indeed, all of what we are learning may be a prelude to just that. Stay tuned.
Anyone for Religion and Theology as non-overlapping magisteria?
How do cause-and-effect believers deal with the ultimate origin of the natural world? Eternity? Some other existence-without-cause provenance?
Science seems to be running faster and faster toward an endlessly receding horizon; perhaps we’re marooned on our little planet of expanations, isolated from a much bigger, inconceivable reality.
How does Buddhism fit into the ideas of religion being discussed?
I know I wasn’t asked, but the question has some importance to me. Not to tout “irresponsibility” in our assessments, but on how such theoretcial ideas can change the way in which we see things now.
What was “spooky,” now becomes a legitimate science in regards to Zeilinger.
Because he entertains the Leader, opens oneself to other ideas, does not mean “his science” is any less relevant.
Doug,
You say here:
“I’m not arguing that the knowledge of God’s existence is founded in the fact that there is no other explanation for some aspect of nature.”
You said earlier:
“Indeed, the man of God will always be better off pointing out the scientific weaknesses of the man of science’s own case. … How then can he take the position that there is no God?”.
Which amounts to demanding us to believe that the knowledge of God’s existence is founded in the fact that there is no other explanation for some aspect of nature.
I can’t make this any clearer to you, at least without you spouting your endless commentaries needlessly, so I will stop now.
macho writes: it sounds like many of the posters here have not spent much time in the heartland of this country, outside of small academic enclaves. I don’t have numbers but suspect that a large percentage of members of the Protestant faith in this country do sincerely believe — belief is paramount, and practice much less so, even for those who do not attend church regularly.
I’ve spent time in the heartland—I grew up there. And yes, belief is important to most protestant Christians, but not all. My mother, in particular, told me from the time I was very young that she doesn’t really believe in life after death or the miracles of Jesus, or the resurrection. Yet she attended Methodist services every Sunday, sang in the choir, took us to Sunday school, etc. Of course, she didn’t express these opinions to other Church members. For her, religion is practice. It’s about striving to take care of the world, and each other, and to constantly remind ourselves how wonderful it is to be alive.
evano writes: How does Buddhism fit into the ideas of religion being discussed? As a religion, it really has no God, as most religions seem to define it. It seems that Buddhism is solely a religion of “practice.”
Yes, I think that is right. Especially Zen Buddhism (Tibetan Buddhism has a fair amount of theology to it, it seems to me.)
Frumious B writes: If we accept “the practices you carry out” as a working definition of religion, doesn’t that pretty much throw the social taboo against mocking religion out the window?
Why should that be the case? There is a similar taboo against making fun of other cultures, isn’t there?
I see “respect for religious conviction” and “respect for cultural differences” to be the same sort of thing. I see our lives as having “public” and “private” aspects, just like a well-structured program. I think that criticism of another person should be limited to the public aspects of their lives—how they do their job, how they treat their fellow humans, how they carry out civic and legal responsibilities.