Faith and science: a conversation between Sam Harris and Robert Winston

April 18, 2011 • 6:23 am

“Science will win because it works.” –Stephen Hawking

Saturday’s Guardian features an online “conversation” between Sam Harris and British doctor, television presenter, and House of Lords member Robert Winston (he’s also a Baron!). Winston has shown sympathies for religion, and the topic of the conversation is “Is there any place for religious faith in science?”  Here are a few extracts:

SH: Religious language is, without question, unscientific in its claims for what is true. We have Christians believing in the holy ghost, the resurrection of Jesus and his possible return – these are claims about biology and physics which, from a scientific point of view in the 21st century, should be unsustainable.

RW: You talk as if science is an absolute, and I don’t think it is at all. It isn’t the truth either, because I don’t believe there is such a thing as “the truth”. You rail against the ultimate truth of what some people believe – ie religion, God, Jesus, whatever. I don’t, because I don’t think it makes any more sense than railing against scientific truths. I say “truths” in inverted commas, because truths have a habit of being altered as we develop our knowledge.

No such thing as “the truth”? I wonder if Baron Winston rides in airplanes.  Does he give antibiotics to his patients with infections? (He’s a doctor, for crying out loud!) If so, doesn’t he think that there might be something to the notion that those drugs kill bacteria?  And if he does see that, well, then, is there also something to the notion that prayer works, or that Jesus came back to life after being crucified, or that we all go to heaven or hell after we die, or that Mohamed went to Paradise on the back of a white horse?  This postmodern stupidity, in which religious “truth” is equated to scientific “truth” (in this case both with quotation marks) simply gives unwarranted credibility to the unevidenced claims of faith.  And now that we’ve “developed” our knowledge that humans can’t come back to life when they’re dead for three days, or be born parthenogenetically, can we expect an “alteration” of faith claims about Jesus? I doubt it: those are bedrock claims of Christianity.

In contrast, during my lifetime I’ve seen an alteration of the scientific view that the continents didn’t move.  Scientific “truth” is indeed not absolute, but subject to change with new evidence.  Religious truth changes only when it’s forced to by secular pressures or the advance of science.  It has no independent way of checking its own claims.

Oh hai, here’s a familiar trope:

RW: I suppose I really wonder why you’re so angry.

SH: [laughs] Do I sound angry?

RW: Yes. You write angrily, too.

SH: I’m more worried than angry, and perhaps impatient. I don’t see any reason to believe that we can survive our religious differences indefinitely. I am worried that religion is one of the forces that has balkanised our world – we have Christians against Muslims against Jews.

RW: But the irony is that books like yours and [Richard Dawkins‘s] God Delusion balkanise the world a good deal more, because they polarise views. The God Delusion has caused very aggressive reactions from [people who] previously weren’t aggressive. In my book, I try to talk about our responsibility as scientists, one of which is to indulge in dialogue with people who are not scientists. One of the ways [atheist science writers] make dialogue is by being aggressive or angry with people who don’t agree with your view.

What a jerk Winston is!  He really doesn’t care about truth; he cares about “tone”.  What he really wants is for atheists to simply stop criticizing religion. I can’t imagine a way that Sam—or any of us—could make our serious points about faith without people like Winston complaining about “anger” and “aggression.”

The two then get into it about Francis Collins, whether he should go around lecturing and writing about Jebus and Frozen Waterfalls, and whether that detracts from his science.  Sam makes a good—and obvious point:

RW: I think he’s entitled to believe it [Collins on Jesus and God] as a human being. I think it’s important for scientists to be a bit less arrogant, a bit more humble, recognising we are capable of making mistakes and being fallacious – which is increasingly serious in a society where our work may have unpredictable consequences.

SH: I agree with all that. I just think you have humility and arrogance reversed in this case. Humility is very much on the side of science and honest self-criticism. The arrogance is claiming to be certain about truth claims of Iron Age philosophy, which someone like Collins does.

Here’s a nice exchange, which typifies the piece.  I do think that Sam gets the better of Winston, though of course I’m biased.  Winston comes off as a soft-headed guy who thinks that if we just listen to the faithful, they’ll come over to the side of science.

SH: You’re suggesting that a scientist can practice his science in isolation from the rest of the scientific worldview. In the States you find biochemists who are young-earth creationists, who think that Genesis is a literal story of cosmology.

RW: I think they’re entitled to their view. I think they’re wrong, but so what?

SH: You wouldn’t say that a doctor is entitled to believe his patients were sick from the evil eye, or voodoo. You wouldn’t say Francis Collins is free to deny the germ theory of disease. You’re recommending he practises his science in a walled garden. That’s an intellectual problem. Every scientist has to admit what is offered as true in the context of religion is scientifically unjustified.

Winston seems to feel that the debasement of evidence-based reasoning by America’s most famous scientist is a matter of little concern.  He’s taking the “I’m-bored-with-it” attitude toward accommodationism, seemingly oblivious to the real problems attendant on faith.  Does he not see how creationism (which of course comes directly from religion) is a constant danger to science education in our country, at least? Or that homeopathy (also based on faith) is a danger to medicine in his country?

68 thoughts on “Faith and science: a conversation between Sam Harris and Robert Winston”

  1. So is this guy a postmodernist? My suggestion to all such people, quite literally, is to go jump out of the 20th floor windows.

  2. My mum (a Catholic) read this article & told me to read it thinking that Winston made good points, so I read it & came away with the opposite impression.
    She then went on to say “Scientists don’t know everything” so we (particularly I) shouldn’t be so outspoken in rejecting claims of the existence of a god. I told her that it didn’t mean we could guess the rest, but her mind’s made up.

    …Fortunately my little brother’s isn’t – my mum phoned up a few days earlier to say that he told her he didn’t want to get confirmed as he didn’t believe in God. That was a good day!

    1. …I will never ever ever understand how “science doesn’t know everything” can be retranslated to mean “therefore, Bronze Age myths are TOTALLY real!”

      This is classic William Lame Craig style apologetics (when he’s not misusing science in the name of Jeebus).

      No, science doesn’t know everything…it it did, it would stop (props to Dara O’Briain).

      However, that does not then allow you to claim absolutely certainty in beliefs for which there is not one shred of credible evidence, nor a logical hypothesis to underpin it.

      Science doesn’t know everything … religion doesn’t know ANYTHING.

    2. great story – thanks for this

      sam harris is doing a great job of pointing out that scientists have much higher responsibility to mankind as a whole because the are trained in science

      i am so happy sam is having such impact on people

      every scientist should unequivocally expose religious thinking as detrimental to humanity as a whole

      and those who practice science as profession and hold the view that they are entitled to private religious beliefs should not be allowed to call themselves a “scientists”

      “scientist” is by definition a public figure because of his _advanced_ training in science that is in contradiction and incompatible with any worldview that is not based on scientific evidence

  3. I read this over the week-end…it was prefaced in the context of the recent Templeton award of course. I too am biased and think Sam makes better points. Robert is in the difficult position of being atheist, but accommodating religion; are there really any good points he could have made?

  5. WInston’s mindset is very typical of what you get over here when you start to discuss or, dare I say it, criticize religion. Because we’re a highly secular state some amongst us have a problem in getting their heads around the theocratic mindset and the extent of fundamentalism in other parts of the world including America and the problems that it brings with it.
    Btw just to confirm for people who may not know, Winston’s a jew…..a secular one I think.

  6. If Mr. Winston is a doctor his patients need to consider seeing someone else for medical care. He calls Sam ‘angry’ and that he ‘writes angry’ this strikes me as another example of ad hominen attacks that theist use when their arguments fail.

  7. “The God Delusion has caused very aggressive reactions from [people who] previously weren’t aggressive.”

    But Winston doesn’t seem to give this thought of his any further analysis; he doesn’t seem to even consider that prior lack of aggression in (religious) people wasn’t because everyone was getting along fine until these atheists had to come along and upset everything, but because the religious had a default upper hand, and have suddenly become aware of what it is to be subject to criticism, something they simply weren’t used to because of the undue deference given to them.

    1. Or that these people were and are aggressive, and it just wasn’t widely known, or reported on. Living in a world of global news, you notice a bit more when there is religious violence or oppression, since it comes an goes in big spurts throughout the world. Its like the people who live next to a volcano and are surprised when it erupts, but it happens on such an infrequent scale that people think those instances were unique, rather than the consequence of something larger. In the same way, religions aren’t violence an intolerance all the time, but I don’t think there is a religion on earth that can’t become violent and intolerant, because of how they treat truth, and laud obedience.

    2. I think of this as similar to the aggression MLK “caused” by challenging the white power structure. Privileged folk just don’t like being challenged. Doesn’t make it wrong to do so, though.

  8. No such thing as “the truth”?

    He is quite right about that.

    Truth is an attribute of statements. When you use “the truth” you are using a noun form, treating it as if it were an immaterial substance that permeates the universe.

    Mostly, when people use “the truth” they are talking metaphorically. But that’s not the way it is use in religious circles, where a lot of theology does talk of “the truth” as if it were some kind of magical substance.

    When I ride in airplanes (to use your example), I am concerned more about the aerodynamics than about whether there is some mystical “truth” substance to keep me afloat.

    1. “Truth” is a tricky term because it easily slips from one side to the other of the claim-world divide. When people say there is such a thing as “The Truth” they generally mean that there is some way that the world is regardless of our beliefs. Either the universe is less than 10,000 years old or it isn’t. But truth is a property of claims or beliefs (“truthbearers”) not of the world. “The universe is at least 10,000 years old” has the property of being true if the world is actually at least 10,000 years old.

  10. “I can’t imagine a way that Sam—or any of us—could make our serious points about faith without people like Winston complaining about “anger” and “aggression.”

    And of course, what’s wrong with anger? You wrote a wonderful piece about atheist anger not too long back.

    Anger is a reasonable response to persistent stupidity and destructive, unfounded ideology.

    Anger can also be a great motivator. 3 cheers for it.

  11. SH: In the States you find biochemists who are young-earth creationists…

    Is he referring to Behe here? Because I’m not sure that Behe is YEC. Isn’t it more accurate that he is one of the “DADT” creationists on the age of the earth?

    1. Behe isn’t a YECer.

      Behe thinks god worked his miracles at the level of the biochemist’s bench. He and Kenneth Miller are actually not all that far apart in their beliefs. Behe just goes one step further to try to quantify examples of “god action”. That’s where the two diverge and where Behe goes off the rails.

      But no, Behe isn’t a young-earther. Heck, he’s not even an anti-evolutionist. He’s a “evolution is real, but the really, really hard bits that we don’t understand — that part god did.” That last bit is the only part where Miller and Behe disagree.

      His books are mindless drek. You can absorb his entire argument while standing up in the Science aisle at the Barnes & Noble — don’t even bother to get a latte and sit down with it.

      Same with Frances Collins, FWIW.

      1. Yeah, I was wording that more rhetorically; I was very sure Behe was not YEC. A lot of them are “DADT” though; i.e., they know that YEC is lunacy but they try to avoid answering questions about the age of the earth so as not to alienate their fundamentalist base. Casey Luskin even has a MS degree in geology and knows full well the earth is old, but you won’t hear that in the Discovery Institute productions.

      2. I hadn’t thought about how similar he and Miller really are though. I’ve read Miller’s books and from the “tone” you’d think that Miller was trying to put as much real estate between himself and Behe as humanly possible.

      3. …and a little quick googling solved the riddle. Among others, Harris is referring to Duane Gish. I did not know Gish was a biochemist. The man is 90 years old now…

  12. Sorry, I think Winston was answering the inner voices, since he wasn’t responding to what Harris said in the slightest, nor to the discussion topic itself.

    It’s pretty amusing watching him talk about the wrong way to engage people in science, then defend Collins’ obvious godbotting as an “opinion.” Myself, I would think engaging people in science should actually have something to do with, you know, science, but what do I know?

    Was Winston even prepared for this, or did he just wake up? He seems a bit unfocused.

  13. I’m at a loss to think how people such as Dr. Collins can believe in the literal truth of the Resurrection and not also believe that Jesus literally cured a blind man by spitting in his eyes.

    And I’m also at a loss to think of how the director of the National Institutes of Health can unquestionably believe that it is possible to cure blindness by spitting in a patient’s eyes without devoting a significant portion of the nation’s medical resources to figuring out how to put into regular practice such a simple and inexpensive (if icky) treatment for such a debilitating condition.

    So, either Dr. Collins is lying to us when he speaks of his belief in the power of Christ or he’s deliberately hindering the effective treatment of serious illness. In neither case should he be in the position of trust he now enjoys.

    I don’t know anything about Baron Winston, but it seems to me that he’s in a very similar position.

    Cheers,

    b&

  15. As soon as Winston started in with his “You’re angry” bit, I totally lost interest in him, and the majority of my respect for him.

    I’m beginning to believe that deflecting a debate to criticize someone’s “tone” is nothing more than a subtle and insidious (not to mention cowardly) new form of ad hominem attack. One generally sees this response from people who have nothing better to say.

    Sam Harris… angry? He’s among the best behaved and level-headed atheist speakers in the civilized world! In MMA terms, Winston tapped out when he characterized our boy Sam Harris as “angry”.

    C’mon, think about it. You’re conversing with someone, and they distract you with a sudden and unexpected observation that depends solely upon their subjective interpretation of your facial expressions and body language. They are essentially commenting on your outward appearance. Classic ad hominem.

    Winston shouldn’t be attacking anyone’s appearance at all, given his own goofy looks. Allow me to respond for Sam:

    Winston: I suppose I really wonder why you’re so angry.

    Harris: I suppose I really wonder why you’re so goofy.

      1. In the good old days it used to be called the ‘why are you so uppity’ strategy.

    1. “The gallery’s director, Eric Mézil, says he will keep the exhibition open to the public with the destroyed work on show “so people can see what barbarians can do”.

    3. But according to Winston, Serrano is just “causing very agressive reactions”. You see, religious people can’t help themselves. It’s a reflex, like your knee going up when hit by a hammer. They can’t help themselves from breaking artworks or flying planes into buildings when they get offended. So, it’s probably Serrano who is ultimately responsible here.

    4. I don’t understand why a Christian would be upset at this.

      The European Human Rights Court just ruled that the crucifix is a completely secular symbol.

  18. I think Winston was weaseling by making it an issue of “the truth” (cf Neil’s comment # 8). Harris said “true,” Winston said “the truth.” That’s a tendentious and sly move – especially if truth is Truth, which it probably was in Winston’s mind.

    Yes yes yes, I don’t think there’s such a thing as The Truth either; that’s easy, and it’s not the issue. Bad Winston, no cookie.

    1. If I may: Of course there is a truth, otherwise it wouldn’t even make sense to try to approach it. In other words, if you do science or even if you in any way rely on science, you at least implicitly, but no less certainly, accept that there is a truth.

      What there isn’t is certain knowledge of the truth. But then, of course, Winston’s assertion that some scientists have arrogated the knowledge of some absolute truth is pure, and rather desperate, straw-man. How utterly embarrassing.

  19. Winston is like the Francis Collins of British medicine. He is brilliant in his own field but has the ability to completely compartmentalize this scientific side from his religious feelings. Any questioning of religion is seen by him as a personal attack – a bit like attacking someones love for a child or a parent, which is why he lashes out at those of the gnu persuasion.

    1. Another example of religious privilege then. We don’t get to treat most of our treasured Thingies as equivalent to a child or parent; we don’t get an automatic excuse for lashing out because we love Shakespeare or sky-diving or hummingbirds or pake like a parent or child; but religion…that’s different. Except that it’s not.

      1. No shit. I also have values. I also have things I hold dear. Why should RELIGIOUS sensibilities be protected from criticism but my artistic/philosophical/etc. sensibilities be fair game?

        That’s one big reason blasphemy laws are indefensible. They offer, like you said, special privileges to religion but not to anything else.

        Some people just assume that the value of their religion (or religion in general) is greater than anything else. Huge blindspot.

  20. Back in the day, this:

    RW: I suppose I really wonder why you’re so angry.
    SH: [laughs] Do I sound angry?
    RW: Yes. You write angrily, too.

    made want to pound my head on my desk.

    But that was BEFORE. Now I know that someone, somewhere will explain to me why it makes me want to pound my head on my desk, Ben will write about zombie Jesus and entrails and stuff, and it will be better. It’s so much more than I use to have.

  21. If any of the commenters here are near Bath, England, there is a potentially amusing talk on Tuesday 19th April, 7:30 PM at the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution.
    This sounds like a great opportunity for any budding Hitchens’!

    The Rationality of Belief in God – No Argument Needed
    Excerpt: “belief in God can be perfectly respectable even in the absence of sound reasoned arguments”
    Presented by Dr Oliver Crisp, University of Bristol

    http://brlsi2.org/posterimages/2011/110419%20God%20662.jpg
    http://brlsi.org/diary.htm

  22. Why are we so angry? Just look at yourselves. Look at yourselves! Look at what you religious ninnies are doing! Is there any place on Earth left unsullied by religion?

    It’s like a kid asking why you are so mad while your house is on fire because a certain someone was playing with matches.

  23. I cannot stand the postmodern approach to epistemology, and thought in general.

    I hate, hate, hate it. And I’m a professional in the arts!

    Postmodernists are averse to the scientific notion that objective “truth” really can be teased out of our experiences because it doesn’t comport w their preferred method of sitting in an armchair and dreaming shit up. And no one would take them seriously. And buy their books. And fete them, and invite them to give ridiculous lectures.

  25. I think the tendency of Harris to frequently use the phrases “scientific” and “science” plays into the accusations of atheist “arrogance”. Substituting phrases like “weight of the evidence” may be more effective.

    When Winston says “You rail against the ultimate truth of what some people believe” a response would be that what we rail against are claims to truth that are unsupported by, and in fact in conflict with, the overall evidence, and more generally the mindset that puts the cart of ideology before the horse of evidence. The focus for these arguments should be on evidence versus faith, and the need to anchor our beliefs in following, and giving first priority to, the overall evidence, not because that is perfectly complete and guaranteed way to “the” ultimate truth, but because its the only method that we have any justification to have some confidence actually works.

  26. “I suppose I really wonder why you’re so angry.”

    Oh, probably because you’re so smugly supercilious.

    Why it’s a good thing it was not I in Harris’s shoes…

  27. TL;DR for this post:

    “I’m going to mock this Robert Winston guy, and prove what he said to be true, at the same time.”
    –pissed off hate-theist with nothing of value to say

    My Google Reader feed is filling up with this kind of waste of time. Apparently it can’t tell the difference between philosophy and immature tantrums.

    Seems like everybody could just agree on children being taught that science NOR religion can ever lead to knowledge, being given science’s “best guesses of the day”, and getting on with life.

    If you want to throw a hissy fit about truth or the lack thereof, get worked up about mathematics or logic. Science is nothing to get worked up about. Especially science relating to something (what happened thousands/millions/billions of years ago) that doesn’t matter.

    Geez. Never seen such a group of people (atheists) that want other people (non-atheists) to die so badly. Its worse than rednecks, radical Islam, and neo-Nazis put together. Doesn’t seem healthy to me.

  28. > RW: I suppose I really wonder why
    > you’re so angry.

    Where exactly would you like me to start? Anger seems like a perfectly moral position to me.

    I’m angry at what churches do to people. I’m angry at how they are treated by society. I’m angry that people delude themselves and others. I’m angry at hypocrasy and harmful lies. I’m angry that people tell me I must respect religion for no reason other than their say-so.

    If I weren’t angry about these things, I think I’d be one shitty human.

Comments are closed.