That’s Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is apparently holding a science festival on April 12-April 21. Not a bad idea in the home of Harvard and MIT.
But what are these events doing there?:
April 14, 10:00am – 11:00am
Sunday – Life, the Universe, & EverythingFirst Church Somerville UCC, 89 College Avenue, just north of Davis Square. First Church Somerville UCC is a church made up of many inquiring minds, a critical mass of professional scientists, and all kinds of spiritual seekers. This Sunday we will be exploring what kinds of conversation, common ground, or integration might exist between science and religion, faith and reason. What can our spirituality learn from science and can science be enlightened by faith? All are welcome here! First Church Somerville UCC Cost: Free
You can bet that there won’t be anyone saying that there can’t be a productive “conversation” between science and faith!
*****’
April 21, 10:00am – 11:00am
Science and Spirituality Sunday
Faith Responds to Climate Change. First Church Somerville UCC, 89 College Avenue, just north of Davis Square First Church Somerville. UCC is a church made up of many inquiring minds, a critical mass of professional scientists, and all kinds of spiritual seekers. This Sunday we’ll be exploring in worship how faith might or must respond to the science of climate change and the reality of global warming. All are welcome here! First Church Somerville UCC. Cost: Free
*****
The Passion of the Cosmos: Scientists on Evolution, Cosmology, and Religion: Open Forum
Sunday, April 21
2:00pm-3:45pm
The Monastery of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, 980 Memorial Dr., CambridgeScience, religion, and more! Noted scientists of faith will share their experience of religious practice and scientific discipline. Share your own experiences, ask questions, pose challenges, or simply, come, watch, listen, and learn.
Panelists include:
John Durant, Ph.D. | Director of MIT Museum and Adjunct Professor in the MIT Program in Science, Technology, and SocietyIan Hutchinson, Ph.D. | MIT Professor of Nuclear Science and EngineeringDavid K.Urion, M.D. | Head of the Behavioral Neurology Program at Boston Children’s Hospital; Associate Professor of Neurology, Harvard MedicalJennifer Wiseman, Ph.D. | Astronomer; Director of the Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) for the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Note how the title echoes Mel Gibson’s odious film, ‘The Passion of the Christ”, and that this event is held at a monastery.
Wiseman is head of the DoSER program (Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, sponsored by Templeton; Hutchinson is a Christian physicist who is part of the Templeton-funded “Test of Faith” project and has decried scientism; and David K. Urion’s books include Having a God Day, And One was a Doctor, and One was a Priest, and Compassion as a Subversive Activity: Illness, Community, and the Gospel of Mark.
As always, my question is this: “What the hell are these events doing in a science festival?” My first guess, of course, was that some of the money came from the Templeton Foundation, but the list of sponsors doesn’t show that. Rather, many sponsors are reputable, including MIT, Harvard, and the National Science Foundation. (I wonder whether any public money, such as that dispensed by the NSF, funded these religious events.)
At any rate, it still mystifies me that it’s almost obligatory for science festivals to have events that emphasize the harmony between science and religion. I see no need for that. Would the festival be less popular without these three events? I doubt it.
And given that most scientists aren’t religious, especially the accomplished ones, if we must hear the pro-accommodationist side, do we ever get to hear the other? I’m not holding my breath.
My own view, though, is that we needn’t hear either side of the science-and-religion debates at these events. Let the organizers stick to science. These are science festivals, not science-and-religion festivals.
What’s next—attempts to reconcile science and astrology?
h/t: Doug
“What can our spirituality learn from science and can science be enlightened by faith?”
1. A lot.
2. No.
/@
“You can bet that there won’t be anyone saying that there can’t be a productive ‘conversation’ between science and faith!”
Well, maybe those of us in the Cambridge area (not me, unfortunately) can go along to say that there can’t!
Btw, it’s a supreme irony that they’ve taken the title from “radical atheist” Douglas Adams!
/@
I immediately noticed the same thing. My first response was that maybe this was more of an anti-religious fake church, but reading on I’m forced to conclude it is just another sad bit of religious accommodation.
EXACTLY, Ant!
For a ghastly moment I thought you meant Cambridge UK ….
However, may I give a plug for the Cheltenham Science Festival which is NOT infested with such odious topics?
http://www.cheltenhamfestivals.com/science
Hopefully these programs will give us a preview of what’s to come at the Roswell UFO Festival in June.
I strongly agree that religion simply does not belong in a science festival(except in the context of sociological or psychological research on human behavior). However, science definitely belongs in religious (and cultural) forums- there are realities that we must deal with or die, both as individuals and as a society- and if religion is supposed to make life more meaningful it’s going to have to step to on these issues.
While righteous outrage at religion in scientific gatherings is understandable, it would still be good to see more discussion of science in religious forums. Are religions coping well with pressing, objective realities, or are they principally a means of avoiding these realities?
Put “Cognitive Dissonance in Action:” before the titles of these (clearly Christian) events, and hey presto – they qualify as science!
“critical mass of professional scientists, and all kinds of spiritual seekers”
They used that line twice? It sounds like an open mic for a bad poetry festival at the institute for speech pathology.
“critical mass of professional scientists…” With any luck, when they get together they’ll blow the place apart.
Most RC masses are critical: “You’re all sinners!”
/@
You can see Hutchinson in this debate from December last year (with Krauss, Shermer, and Mr Shouty) “Science refutes god” – just under an hour:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/728-science-refutes-god
Can science by enlightened by faith? No! Because by definition “faith” is believing in things without evidence. Science is the processing of refining our knowledge of the world using evidence and scientific method. So they are orthogonal at the root.
What can our spirituality learn from science? Science produces results and adds to our knowledge of the world. This informs our moral values. Spirituality/religion typically responds by adapting to the new knowledge by adding another veneer of “metaphor” on old stultified myths and . Lather, rinse, repeat!
I don’t understand why this such a big deal. If anything, this should be applauded.
As long as they don’t get the science wrong, these kinds of events are harmless. In the preceding post it is clear that many religious people in countries other than the US are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with evolution; this seems to be a good thing according to that post.
So events like these that encourage such a reconciliation should be applauded; not condemned. As long as they get the science right, why care? Complain when they get the science wrong, but tread carefully; ain’t no one perfect.
sean s.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx
Forgot to click the notify button.
Shouldn’t it be the religious, churches and clergy, you encourage such reconciliation?
I don’t think scientific organizations should be taking theological positions.
“As long as they get the science right…”
But they don’t. The end up sticking God in somewhere – anywhere!– where there’s no need.
/@
*They
The “reconciliation” of science and faith only works if you compartmentalize. And how do we figure out where to draw this imaginary line? Is it where they start to get the science wrong?
Faith is motivated reasoning and subjective confirmation. You’d be amazed at all the ‘scientific’ evidence for ESP, NDEs, miracles, human energy fields, and an evolution powered by a Creative Force. All science — because they have Phd’s who have done studies.
We say “you’re getting the science wrong.” They reply “no; you just need to be open to accepting the truth. The evidence is good enough for those with an open heart. Look — a lot of scientists are religious. So this is okay.”
Tread MORE carefully. Since people aren’t perfect it’s not wise to start playing fast and loose with what can be “reconciled” with science. Watch that area expand.
Time to petition the sponsors?
I bet I know exactly what kind of conversation, common ground, and integration is going to be happening in this happy little Sunday forum: equivocation. They are going to push the button labeled “category error” hard … and they are going to push it often.
What does “spirituality” mean? What is “faith?” To answer these questions they are going to drag in what Dennett calls deepities, definitions and statements which sound deep because they can be interpreted as true-but-trivial OR as extraordinary-but-false — and this distinction is then blurred.
“Spirituality” is a love for nature, a curiosity about existence, an appreciation of knowledge, an urge for discovery, and a search for values and ideas to live by. And … oh yeah … also the material world is an illusion and God exists and you can know ESP is real and homeopathy works because you can experience it for yourself. Either. Both. Either and both. Whatever lulls your critical sense and shuts you up.
Religion is how you live your spirituality. Or it’s the traditional definition which requires a belief in the supernatural. Whatever works for you. Smile.
And faith? Faith is sometimes a pragmatic reliance on a falsifiable assumption based on evidence … and at other times it’s the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, and the way we know God exists. Either. Both. Either and both. Let’s all get along.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Five will get you ten that this Sunday all the people at this session will be busily, passionately, frantically exploring what kinds of conversations can exploit the common ground between science and religion in order to pull a fast bait-n-switch of ideas and make it superficially appear as if faith and reason have successfully been integrated.
And there will be much rejoicing….
Sastra,
If all this opens religious people up to accepting evolution specifically and science generally, is there any harm?
sean s.
But they don’t accept science as it is. They tinker with it. They end up sticking God in somewhere – anywhere!– where there’s no need.
/@
Yep, they can’t help it. Compulsive tinkers.
I’d actually be thrilled if the UCC was representative of American Christianity. Their theology is as batshit fucking insane as any other, but they’ve got an excellent record of coming down on the right side of social matters, especially civil rights.
I still remember a gig I did at a UCC church where the Bible lesson was about some relatively obscure and rather bizarre story about YHWH interacting with his pets, and the pastor spent a lot of the time wondering what it must have been like for those lucky souls to actually personally experience this real physical manifestation of the divine and how blessed people in ancient history were to have seen such wonders first hand.
…and then the sermon itself was all about immigration reform. It started with a bit of history about the church’s activities on the Underground Railroad and used that to segue into some of the church’s current activities in sponsoring immigrants and advocating for legislative action. There was also a bit about the church’s origins fleeing persecution in Europe leading to their support of the Jeffersonian Wall, and I think even a shout-out to LGBTQ equality as well. It was quite a marathon speech!
I can put up an awful lot of Bible babble from somebody like that. Not that I’d keep my mouth shut, of course, but I’d be quite happy to join them in a rally outside the legislature in the morning, heatedly argue religion over lunch, and then join back with them in front of the governor’s mansion in the afternoon.
Cheers,
b&
Back when I used to debate in the chatrooms some of the fundamentalists used to sneer at the UCC and say it stood for “Unitarians Considering Christ.” That’s supposed to be an insult, but I remember it and thus classify the UCC as being on the liberal end of the political and theological spectrum. Unitarians, of course, are so far on the liberal end that you can have a meaningful debate on whether they qualify as a “religion” at all.
Most gnu atheists are happy to join together with liberal theists for shared political, environmental, or social causes. But there is a deep and serious conflict involved in their attempt to ground a progressive, reason-based humanist world view inside of a larger reactionary, faith-based spirit-world view. So I’d gladly join you in both the rally and the heated argument over lunch … and then the rally again.
Ditto this.
“— scientists of faith”. This is the most pernicious phrase I have heard in a long time. If a scientist believes in some religion I have no problem with that provided his beliefs do not impact upon rigorous scientific protocols. Likewise, I have no difficulty with a believer not accepting the truth of results derived from rigorous experiment and clear evidence. I merely feel sorry for them. But to link science and religion in this way and give the impression that there are “scientists” and “scientists of faith” may seem to infer that the latter may somehow be more credible and trustworthy. That is an appallingly dangerous message to give to those who are uninformed and perhaps not firmly in either camp.
Because if they called it what it mostly probably is, a religious festival, no one would show up.
Slightly more seriously, I think these are all good, in the sense that it tells us which of the two, science or religion, really draws the crowds. 😉
Every one knows science works (Ref: XKCD) and religion is attempting to remain relevant by latching on to the coattails.
I don’t know. Religious festivals (or “Spirituality” festivals) usually do pretty well on attendance, from what I’ve seen.
Popular scientists like Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson often complain(ed) about how many people eagerly come up and inform them how much they looooove science — and then ask a question about crop circles or astrology. They don’t understand what science is — and what it isn’t. They don’t know where to draw lines.
I got into an argument yesterday with several of my friends. They kept insisting that trying out alternative medicine remedies like reiki or homeopathy (or worse … don’t ask) to see if they worked for them was how they see “science.” That’s science, a view of science. I kept saying no. No, that is not science. It may be how they think of science, but it is not what science is. It’s naive empiricism.
I am so closed-minded. It’s a wonder they can stand me.
Well, ok. Technically, I did not get into an argument. An “argument” implies a rational chain of evidence and ideas and a discussion about them, with clear definitions and fruitful explanations in hopes of coming to a consensus. Instead, I simply disagreed with my friends. I said “that is not science.” Several times.
That’s allowed. What’s not allowed is telling them why I disagree. They don’t want to know why. We share opinions, and done. The concept of getting into a heated argument and remaining friends is apparently foreign to them. Spirituality is never aggressive. Ever.
So I’m learning to work within the framework of passive-aggression. Fortunately, I learn from masters.
No, it doesn’t.</Monty Python>
I’m sorry. You’re looking for “abuse.” That’s down the hall.
Stupid git….
b&
Jerry,
As I was sitting in the Harvard Geology Hall last night waiting to hear the lecture, I breezed through the pamphlet for the Cambridge Science Festival that I picked up on their desk there. Thought I’d mention another event that I read about in that pamphlet and found to be shocking enough that I decided that I must attend :
http://www.cambridgesciencefestival.org/2013Festival/2013ScheduleOfEvents/ScienceandIslam.aspx
I’m not sure where I’ve seen it, but I think Taner Edis has recently done a take-down of this particular traveling Science-and-Islam dog-and-pony show.
For a more general criticism of Muslim attempts to shoehorn the Quran into modern science (and vice versa) see his book An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam. Edis has studied this topic for decades — and he is a master at dissecting and critiquing it.
Thanks, I’ll check it.
Some of Edis’ online essays can be found here.
What *are* they thinking?! I’d like to see of this research done on the brains of the deluded religious:
http://www.nature.com/news/see-through-brains-clarify-connections-1.12768
Wiseman is head of the DoSER program
Dozer? That’s what I think when I see that.
Since when have MIT and Harvard been reputable. They are run by same interests that run everywhere else.
“The reality of global warming” – well that’s a step in the right direction. But, quite what religion has to with that I’m not sure.
This!
/@
I’ll just leave this here… The dialogue between science and faith.
/@
“And given that most scientists aren’t religious”
That’s debatable.
“About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do………….
Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists — people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology — said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices………………
In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. ”
http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html
Ecklund is well known as a case study in statistics-as-propaganda.
Even a cursory dip into her data is enough to reveal her dishonesty. In her survey, it’s not two thirds of scientists who believe in YHWH, for example, but two-thirds of scientists who believe in YHWH…and / or express similar types of awe at the Universe as Sagan did. One third of scientists, it may therefore be surmised, were already familiar with Eklund and her ilk and their way of distorting public opinion for fun and profit.
If you look at the raw data that Ecklund collected, it becomes instantly obvious that her actual findings were perfectly in line with all the other studies: damned few scientists are religious at all, and the few who express some sort of religious sentiment are almost overwhelmingly deistic. But they’re all in favor of beautiful sunsets and being overwhelmed by the majesty of a star-filled sky.
Cheers,
b&