Oh dear. One of ours—a University of Chicago cardiologist named Jalees Rehman, has written an article for HuffPo called “The parallel realities of modern science and Islam“. Rehman, a German Muslim, once spent a lot of time trying to “unify” science and Islamic spirituality, but eventually realized it was a mug’s game:
It was only when I became a scientist that I realized the challenge of actually unifying two bodies of knowledge that at their very core are completely distinct. Modern scientific knowledge consists of theories and models that are based on results of experiments which empirically test specific hypotheses. Spiritual knowledge is based on the study of sacred scriptures and metaphysical experiences. This fundamental disparity between modern science and spirituality results in a very different view of reality, as has been eloquently shown in Taner Edis’ excellent book An Illusion of Harmony, and unifying modern science and spirituality seems like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
That’s a promising start, but then Rehman goes off the rails:
These practical considerations have not deterred many contemporary Muslim scientists and philosophers and they are still actively trying to develop practical approaches to a modern day “Islamic Science”. However, there are also other voices that see modern science and religion as two distinct bodies of knowledge that allow us to view different but complementary aspects of reality. We do not advocate a unification of knowledge, but a form of mutual respect and dialogue so that each body of knowledge can draw from their partner’s strengths and wisdom.
That’s straight NOMA talk, but let’s reiterate what each magisterium can gain from “dialogue” with the other:
1. Religion. Religion gains but one thing from science: an increasing knowledge about the universe that makes mockery of religious doctrine, forcing the faithful to revise their dogma while claiming that it was consistent with science all along.
2. Science. Science has nothing to gain from religion, which is simply an annoyance that distracts us from our job.
If I’ve missed something, let me know.
As for science and religion being “complementary aspects of reality,” they’re no more complementary than astronomy and astrology, modern medicine and Christian Science, and evolution and creationism.
Perhaps Dr. Rehman could take another look at the Quran in light of modern biblical scholarship. It’s obviously a clumsy rip-off of the Bible and related Christian and Jewish traditions, which is in turn largely a collection of material ripped off from earlier traditions.
There’s no “knowledge” in religious traditions to compare to that gained by science.
Do you include textual analysis in the sciences? I always thought it was in the arts. The stories can be demonstrated to be very similar, but even that is no guarantee of copying. Back when I had time to read fiction, I recall that some of the Asian creation myths are very similar to some of the mid-east and Grecian creation myths, but as far as I know no one has shown how the one could have derived from the other (and when the actual first appearance of the story cannot be determined it is difficult to rule out much later influences). So when Text B is criticized as having a similar form and narrative as Text A and appears later than Text A, usually the best claim to be made is that it’s likely derived from Text A (but I imagine an actual proof of a derivation is rare). Unfortunately, unlike the natural sciences, there are no set rules governing literature.
If we define science broadly to include all disciplined rational inquiry, then I think we could include textual analysis as a “science”. But usually we define science more narrowly.
Of course, textual analysis is “science,” just like history is “science,” and of which textual analysis is an important tool. Aren’t the Bible and the Koran important tools for exploring social history, for example for the study of attitudes towards women in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.
Religion has nothing to do with knowledge, but a lot in common with art.
I would disagree. I would have to say “modern art” or even “wine commentating”. I find there is much that is enjoyable with “real” art, but absolutely nothing of value with religion. Jackson Pollock’s “Blue Poles”? I’d say it’s worth $0.10 but the piece of dung is valued on the market at a few million. As Ben Elton put it in one of his books, value has everything to do with the cost and nothing to do with aesthetics or quality.
At least ‘Blue Poles’ exists, which is more than can be said for the profound vacuity of the church-based objects of faith.
Dogma ain’t even worth ten cents.
You’d have to *pay* me a few million to even consider it.
Womderful. That says it all.
“two distinct systems that allow us to view the very different aspects of reality, in the case of science and imagination, in the case of religion”
There. Fixed.
It’s always curious to find these other voices `seeing’ something different than the rest as well as ‘advocating’ something seemingly ennobling. Yet they seldom, if ever, bother to either explain their newly acquired vision or justify their harmony-inducing advocacy.
“…seemingly ennobling…”
I think this is key. Accomodationists and NOMA proponents, as well as cultural/moral relativsts have this contortion of logic wherein “the high road” = trying very hard to ignore the problems of certain philosophies/worldviews. They maybe even get some kind of “condescension high” out of it.
I think that’s a fair observation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has said that, in the West, people have it in their heads that they must never state the obvious. So to even bring up the liabilities of Islam (which is what Ali was referring to) is to take a precarious walk on the edge of political correctness. In a sense, this reflects something that is arguably very noble about many Westerners, which is our reluctance to pass judgment on matters we might not fully understand. But most of the time I think this impulse is grossly misplaced, and, yes, it often amounts to breathtaking condescension.
in the West, people have it in their heads that they must never state the obvious.
Jeez, it would be nice if that were true!
“condescension high”
OK, now I’m considering rewriting the lyrics to John Denver’s song..
Condescension high… Pennsylvania
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/161085/882697
hmm, looking at the first verse, it almost doesn’t need to even be seriously rewritten…
Now, when reading that, think about Chris Mooney…
Ha!
The vagueness is merely a mechanism by which to avoid the glaring reality that they are knowingly, wilfully, consciously & deliberately lying.
“If I’ve missed something, let me know.”
Nope. I think you’ve nailed it.
Uhhh. that reference is to the fiction of Jesus on the cross.
How about “Nope, you split the uprights.” or “A three-pointer!”.
Need a reference for that please.
What’s wrong with “hitting a nail on the head”? I think you insult many generations of carpenters who know where that reference likely originates. I doubt there’s any reference to Jebus in there at all.
Those sports analogies would be much younger than the nail one.
“Science has nothing to gain from religion, which is simply an annoyance that distracts us from our job.”
You’re leaving out the entertainment value. But I guess that falls under Art, not Science.
The ‘how not to do science’ bit of faith-based behaviour is didactic to scientists & students alike.
Also, the neurology of delusional god-bot whack-jobs can be interesting to scientists.
Nasr and Bakar contrast such “Islamic Science” with the modern science which emanated from Europe in the 17th century C.E. and has since become the dominant force of scientific inquiry in the world. In their view, modern science is nearly exclusively based on a rationalist and materialist view of the world, and therefore does not require that the scientific methodology and interpretation are integrated with any faith-based system.
Rehman is promoting the work of a crackpot evolution denier and 1999 Templeton Religion and Science Award winner Seyyed Hossein Nasr, whom Rehman calls “one of the world’s foremost contemporary Muslim philosophers”. See the chapter in Nasr’s book titled “The Concept of Human Progress Though Material Evolution: A Critique”. Here’s a Google books link describing Nasr’s view in the book The Muslims of America.
FWIW, I’ve encountered two very different Muslim reactions to the fact of evolution. The first, and the one I see most often, is from Islamic scholars like Nasr who are flat-out evolution deniers. The other is from Muslims who cite this Quranic passage to justify that evolution and the rest of science are compatible with Islam:
I’d call any physician that denies evolution a quack, especially a doctor that practices at a research university. Is Rehman an evolution denier? If not, what’s he doing promoting Nasr’s views on “sacred science” at HuffPo? Rehman links to Nasr’s book on Amazon, so Rehman must know that Nasr is an evolution denier. Is Rehman ignorant and wicked?
[Also HuffPo link needs fixing.]
Link fixed, thanks.
The big problem for Dr. Rehman is that he is still committed to a religion. Compared to that, his support of NOMA is of little significance.
Modern scientific knowledge consists of theories and models that are based on results of experiments which empirically test specific hypotheses. Spiritual knowledge is based on the study of sacred scriptures and metaphysical experiences.
“Spiritual knowledge” isn’t knowledge. This one-word brazen validation of pure assertion as “knowledge” is a pervasive cheat that HAS GOT TO STOP.
I was just going to quote that paragraph, and say “wait what, I only see one body of knowledge here”.
Ophelia says: “Spiritual knowledge” isn’t knowledge. This one-word brazen validation of pure assertion as “knowledge” is a pervasive cheat that HAS GOT TO STOP.
Right, but how? Is it asking too much of the culture to have a conversation about what counts as knowledge? Probably. But if that happened, it would become obvious that supernaturalists employ two epistemic standards, one which relies on intersubjective, public evidence to establish everyday facts and one which relaxes that constraint when backing up religious claims, which according to Rehman need only sacred texts and “metaphysical experiences” for justification.
But of course why suppose that certain aspects of reality – supernatural states of affairs – are reliably modeled by a procedure that is universally shunned when deciding just about all other matters of fact? Why is it epistemically responsible to suddenly abandon the commitment to public evidence in certain domains? I don’t think it would be unfair to pin down supernaturalists and accomodationists on such basic questions.
But how?
Consciousness-raising, that’s how.
Just as Ophelia is doing, that’s how!
Consciousness-raising has dramatically reduced the incidence of casual of racism, misogynism, homophobic remarks, fear of atheists etc.
It works.
No you have not missed a thing but Dr. Rehman has just forgoton (missed or lost) his reasoning in the use of “knowledge”. He admits scientific fact is knowledge but assumes that knowledge is arrived at from intangible metaphysical experiences and “sacred” scriptures. I suggest he STUDY Ibn Warraq’s book “Why I am not a Muslim”. It may not be sacred but we know HE wrote it.
I really liked that book.
I even know him! So I really know he wrote it. :- )
His edited collection Leaving Islam is also terrific.
If the requirement is laboratory observation instead of natural observation, creationists will be:
– geology deniers; since we don’t see metamorphosis in the lab
– astronomy deniers; since we don’t see star evolution in the lab
– cosmology deniers; since we don’t see CMB evolution in the lab
– weather deniers; since we don’t see cloud formation in the lab
– climate deniers; since we don’t see glacier evolution in the lab
– volcanism deniers; since we don’t see magma formation in the lab
– plate tectonic deniers; since we don’t see plate tectonics in the lab
et cetera ad infinitum.
As for NOMA, the relation of gods to science is the same as the relation of perpetual motion machines to thermodynamics, except for the bit of culture surrounding the former.
When Rehman claims that one can “see modern science and religion as two distinct bodies of knowledge that allow us to view different but complementary aspects of reality” it is the same as trying to say “see modern science and technology as two distinct bodies of knowledge that allow us to view different but complementary aspects of reality”.
The latter is obviously wrong, we can predict that perpetual motion machines would break physics. The former would be equally obvious if NOMAists exchange “magic” for “religion”, we can predict that magic manipulation would break physics.
Of course you can go platonist and say that the mere ideas of perpetual motion machines and gods are “different but complementary aspects”, but then you would have to drop “of reality”. (To remain compatible with science realism.)
And then again you can go theologian and become intellectually unrespectable.
Also, since genomic sequencing come about, I believe we have seen a lot of “laboratory cases of the changing of one species into another”. It seems to work perfectly fine to make phylogenetic trees observing speciation by way of genomes.
Much better than trying to see many of the above processes in the laboratory in fact. (Unless you admit realistic [gasp!]modeling[/gasp!] as lab observation.)
“but let’s reiterate again what each magisterium can gain from “dialogue” with the other:
1. Religion. Religion gains but one thing from science: an increasing knowledge about the universe that makes mockery of religious doctrine, forcing the faithful to revise their dogma while claiming that it was consistent with science all along.
2. Science. Science has nothing to gain from religion, which is simply an annoyance that distracts us from our job.
If I’ve missed something, let me know.”
There is an old story about the futility of trying to teach a pig to sing.
First, Pigs cannot sing.
Second, It merely annoys the pig.
On the whole, the religionist may not be capable of learning much science. Additionally, putting science in front of a religionist merely upsets the religionist.
Can we agree on one thing? Medical doctors are not scientists, they are mechanics. They are trained to study and treat one mammalian species and know a little about a few other mammals that work the same way. They learn just enough science to get along.
QFT.
The whole concept of ‘evidence based practice’ is still controversial in medicine, says it all really.
I think the last two points pretty much sums it up…
Science has nothing to gain from religion, which is simply an annoyance that distracts us from our job. If I’ve missed something, let me know.
The exception that occurs to me is some Buddhists do things in their meditation that we can confirm, like slowing heart rate, or raising body temperature. I imagine anyone interested in psychology or neuroscience would like to know[1] what those Buddhists know[2].
[1] In a refereed journal
[2] In Buddhist practice
One step in this direction was the conference “Investigating the Mind: Exchanges Between Buddhism and the Biobehavioral Sciences on How the Mind Works” (Sept. 13-14, 2003). As MIT’s news office reported on the summary session
No not really it’s still woo!
The exception that occurs to me is some Buddhists do things in their meditation that we can confirm, like slowing heart rate, or raising body temperature.
hmmm, sounds familiar…
http://www.behavmedfoundation.org/
points being two:
1. it isn’t religion
2. it HAS been studied as science, hence search the pubmed database for “biofeedback”.
How do you mean, “it isn’t religion”?
If you mean, “today’s Western scientific study of biofeedback is not religion,” then I would agree — because that would show my point exactly — that knowledge was transferred from a religion to Western science.
Or if you mean, “biofeedback in Buddhist meditation is not religion,” then I would disagree — because that would be like saying communion wafers and wine are not religious.
BTW, I’m certainly not endorsing all claims of Buddhism (like reincarnation), I’m only answering our host’s invitation, “Science has nothing to gain from religion… If I’ve missed something, let me know.”
no… the knowledge was not of a religious dogmatic nature to begin with.
do not confuse ritual with religion, nor experience.
if I plant ritual corn in rows, because it simply grows better, that ain;t religion.
so, no, this practice was not of a religious nature.
what you’re doing is the equivalent of saying ancient herbalism was religion, so modern medicine is based on religion.
I hope you can see how that would be incorrect.
Jerry,
The only thing you’ve “missed”is what most of us on the non-believing side of the equation typically miss.
Evidence from a wide range of disciplines (e.g., neurobiology, evolutionary psychology, behavioral economics…) reveals that human beings are much more likely to be led (and are in fact more often led) by their feelings than by rationality.
Widespread embrace of science and reason in America (and much of the world) is likely to occur ONLY when it becomes much more widely known that a naturalistic view of reality provides better (more dependable, more consistent) access to feeling-states that humans have always needed to thrive — individually and collectively — that do myths interpreted literally.
Until we who reject superstition and embrace science and reason get a hell of a lot better at doing this, we should not be surprised that the vast majority of people will continue to go to whatever form of woo they’ve been taught as a child or encountered later, for access to the feeling-states that make life worth living — such as trust when looking to the future (rather than fear), gratitude when looking to the past (rather than guilt or resentment), and inspiration to be in action in the moment no matter what the chaos or challenges of the day. One does not need to go to mythic beliefs to have consistent access to these feeling-states, but billions of people do not know this.
Co-evolutionarily,
~ Michael
This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me:
I don’t think that’s the way that most of Europe gave up religion, realizing that naturalism gave them better access to “feeling-states!” I think they just realized that there’s no evidence for the tenets of religion, and that religious belief is childish, on a par with believing in Santa Claus.
Perhaps, but firsthand experience with the effects of modern warfare motivated by the traditional “gott mit uns” sloganeering probably caused them finally to hold religious claims to some scrutiny. If true, this is a very pessimistic explanation because the cure is as bad as the disease, and it means that younger generations are at high risk of recidivism, or re-evangelization as Ratzi puts it.
To make a related and more general point: in Europe, state religion has always played a prominent role. This is to religions detriment because in the resulting identification criticisms of the state become criticisms of religion. An extreme example, Catalans probably found atheism a lot more appealing after the Catholic Church supported Franco. I think this is a fundamental reason why religion remains more popular in the US, which is ironic when you consider how incensed some fundamentalists are regarding the first amendment.
I do agree with stvs that there is a risk of “recidivism” in Europe as religion becomes viewed independent of the state.
Professor Coyne, I am a little surprised at your reply, because many of your blog postings are of a piece with the point Dowd is making. You exhibit a deep and expansive love of literature, poetry and film that surely feed your spiritual needs in much the same way that religion does for others, though I understand you would not express it in these terms. But not everyone has the background, education and intellect to have read Cormac McCarthy and T.S. Eliot and seen the films of Yasujiro Ozu. Their needs are as great but their means more limited.
Of course much of Europe gave up religion because they found that they could live a great life without mythic answers to life’s big questions! Surely they would not have done so if a reasonable worldview was not at least as emotionally satisfying as superstitious ones.
The exception that occurs to me is some Buddhists do things in their meditation that we can confirm, like slowing heart rate, or raising body temperature. I imagine anyone interested in psychology or neuroscience would like to know[1] what those Buddhists know[2].
Objection. These are not “Buddhist” practices, they have older Hindu roots. Studying Buddhism without studying Hinduism is even more futile than trying to understand Christianity and Islam without first studying Judaism. A funnier thing is how the same practice when followed by Hindus is woo and when followed by Buddhists becomes “rational”. Actually they are both as (ir)rational and ill-informed as each other. And this is not a religious matter at all, because if you can study it thru observation, hypothesis and analysis, you are doing science. Religion is very clear that all this is the work of the devil or simply peasant magic! Although as a Hindu I find it very funny that the tale of a man feeding a few 100 people from a basket of fish and loaves is in any way more awesome than the story of a peasant who uproots a mountain to use it as an umbrella and frustrate the rain god’s plans to spoil his parade!
Mike Dowd,
Europe also gave up on religion because of its many crises in the 1st half of the 20th century. Unfortunately we in America are not a pragmatic people anymore, since the time Eisenhower, LBJ and Tricky Dick. If oil, the dwindling resource, had become hard to get around the ’80s we may have become more pragmatic. Unfortunately the other power of the time – USSR – instead of growing in proportion to the US, collapsed, helping us kick the problem down to the next generation. The lack of sense of urgency also stymied the development of our nuclear energy sector, thanks to another bunch of Luddites – the Sierra Club and their friends. France ignored the cranks and has quietly built up the world’s largest nuclear power supply chain. China is following suit.
You wrote that Hinduism and Buddhism
So you set up this dichotomy: A) Religion is ignorance by definition, versus B) Testing claims is science by definition. But Stephen Kosslyn, a professor of cognitive psychology and neuroscience at Harvard, said
Maybe this is how Buddhism earned respect.
Dave. Here’s a little quiz to test your respect for the homophobic Dalai Lama. I call it:
“The Pope, or the Dalai Lama?”
1) Who told a press conference in 1997 that men to men sex and woman to woman sex is sexual misconduct?
The Pope, or the Dalai Lama?
2) Who told a Swiss magazine in 2001, that sexual organs were created for the reproduction of the male element and the female element, and anything that deviates from this is not acceptable?
The Pope, or the Dalai Lama?
3) An anti-abortion lobby group called “Consistent life” was given a huge boost after on of the world’s most prominent religious leaders offered his endorsement?
The Pope, or the Dalai Lama?
4) Who published a collection of religious teachings declaring that masturbation is forbidden?
The Pope, or the Dalai Lama?
5) Who declared that oral sex is not acceptable, even between a husband and wife?
The Pope, or the Dalai Lama?
6) Who published a collection of religious teachings in 1996 declaring that anal sex is not acceptable, even between a husband and wife?
The Pope, or the Dalai Lama?
7) Who said that having sex during the day is sexual misconduct?
The Pope, or the Dalai Lama?
Of course, every single answer is: The Dalai Lama.
That usually throw these happy-go-lucky Buddhist wanna be for a six!
(Especially the ban on daytime sex.
The Pope is far more liberal on many of these issues)
…………..
References:
1. San Francisco Chronicle, 11 June 1997
2. Dimanche magazine, Jan 2001
3. Reuters, 22 Jan 2001
4, 5, 6 & 7. “Beyond Dogma (The challenge of the modern world)” by the Dalai Lama (1996)**