UPDATE: An alert reader has informed me that the Edge site also contains a “debate” (well, really more of a conversation) between Angier and David Sloan Wilson, which you can find here. Wilson doesn’t seem to care whether religion is true or false, maintaining that the only thing a scientist should care about is whether it originated because it inspired good behavior (e.g., whether it evolved by group selection). That’s a curiously blinkered view, because a). that question cannot be decided since the origins of religion are lost in the irrecoverable past, and b). the question at issue is whether religion is a good or bad thing now. And for a scientist, it should also matter whether religious claims are true. It’s interesting that truth seems to matter more to the science journalist than to the scientist!
_______________
Posting is going to slow down here as I’m busy writing a book, but, like Maru, I do my best. From time to time I’ll put up stuff that I encounter while writing, and the title of today’s “sermon” comes from a book (note—don’t waste your money) in which Alvin Plantinga notes that the real conflict isn’t between Darwinism (i.e., modern evolutionary theory) and religion, but between Darwinism and naturalism. That comes from Plantinga’s crazy idea that evolution could never have given humans the ability to discern things (like the fact of evolution) as true, because evolution only vouchsafes us behaviors that maximize our reproductive success. He posits, instead, that the ability of humans to discern truth comes from a sensus divinitatis installed by God. That, of course, gives us reason to trust our senses, not only about evolution but (of course!) about the reality and salvific properties of Jesus. The problems with this idea are too obvious to discuss.
But I digress. Here’s where the real conflict lies. This is a short excerpt from the best and funniest essay ever written on the incompatibility of science and religion: “My God problem,” by science writer Natalie Angier. In just a few pages she does more than anyone else ever has to puncture the pretensions of people like Nick Matzke, Kenneth Miller, Chris Mooney, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), the AAAS’s DoSER program, and every accommodationist who pretends that there’s no conflict between science and faith.
I’ve recommended Angier’s essay before, but if you haven’t read it, go do so now (it’s on the Edge site).
Here’s the big conflict:
So why is it that most scientists avoid criticizing religion even as they decry the supernatural mind-set? For starters, some researchers are themselves traditionally devout, keeping a kosher kitchen or taking Communion each Sunday. I admit I’m surprised whenever I encounter a religious scientist. How can a bench-hazed Ph. D., who might in an afternoon deftly purée a colleague’s PowerPoint presentation on the nematode genome into so much fish chow, then go home, read in a two-thousand-year-old chronicle, riddled with internal contradictions, of a meta-Nobel discovery like “Resurrection from the Dead,” and say, gee, that sounds convincing? Doesn’t the good doctor wonder what the control group looked like?
. . . I recognize that science doesn’t have all the answers and doesn’t pretend to, and that’s one of the things I love about it. But it has a pretty good notion of what’s probable or possible, and virgin births and carpenter rebirths just aren’t on the list. Is there a divine intelligence, separate from the universe but somehow in charge of the universe, either in its inception or in twiddling its parameters? No evidence. Is the universe itself God? Is the universe aware of itself? We’re here. We’re aware. Does that make us God? Will my daughter have to attend a Quaker Friends school now?
I don’t believe in life after death, but I’d like to believe in life before death. 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.
And I love this bit, clearly aimed at every mealymouthed accommodationist in America:
No, most scientists are not interested in taking on any of the mighty cornerstones of Christianity. They complain about irrational thinking, they despise creationist “science,” they roll their eyes over America’s infatuation with astrology, telekinesis, spoon bending, reincarnation, and UFOs, but toward the bulk of the magic acts that have won the imprimatur of inclusion in the Bible, they are tolerant, respectful, big of tent. Indeed, many are quick to point out that the Catholic Church has endorsed the theory of evolution and that it sees no conflict between a belief in God and the divinity of Jesus and the notion of evolution by natural selection. If the pope is buying it, the reason for most Americans’ resistance to evolution must have less to do with religion than with a lousy advertising campaign.
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” 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.”
In other words, for horoscope fans, the burden of proof is entirely on them, the poor gullible gits; while for the multitudes who believe that, in one way or another, a divine intelligence guides the path of every leaping lepton, there is no demand for evidence, no skepticism to surmount, no need to worry. You, the religious believer, may well find subtle support for your faith in recent discoveries—that is, if you’re willing to upgrade your metaphors and definitions as the latest data demand, seek out new niches of ignorance or ambiguity to fill with the goose down of faith, and accept that, certain passages of the Old Testament notwithstanding, the world is very old, not everything in nature was made in a week, and (can you turn up the mike here, please?) Evolution Happens.
The difference in the way the Cornell site treats religion and astrology underscores the respect that religion gets in America compared to other systems of delusional thought. Astrology and homeopathy bad; resurrection and virgin births okay.
I believe this essay was first published in, of all places, The American Scholar, but I may be wrong. You may recall that it was Angier’s laudatory review of Sam Harris’s The End of Faith that marked the beginning of public acceptance of New Atheism in the U. S.
I first read this essay in a collection called “Best Science Writing from 2005”.
It was in “The American Scholar.” Here’s the first essay of hers I remember reading on this topic: http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010114mag-atheism.html
Brilliant.
Leslie “are there atheists in the cancer wards? Hell, yes” Brunetta
P.S.: I’m fine now. Thanks to science.
Though I was heartened by this woman’s response to Wolf Blitzer’s assumption of religiosity:
http://deadspin.com/wolf-blitzer-asks-atheist-tornado-survivor-if-she-than-509150402
>
**
Book! A new book! From Jerry!
…have you made known the subject? And how have I not heard of this before now?
b&
b&
He’s been talking about it for a while. It’s not entirely clear what it’s about, but his preparation for it has involved reading a lot of Sophisticated Theology.
Love the phrase “upgrade your metaphors”.
Theologians are Cybermen, being stopped by the latest scientific advance only to declare “Upgrading” (our metaphors) and then carrying on as before.
Or the Borg. They assimilate the bits and pieces of the enlightenment they find most useful, but the core remains (evil).
Ah — whovian theology v. trekker theology! Splitters!!
/@
You’re all missing the mark. They are more like the Sith: laid low and weakened by their past infighting, they currently marshal their strengths to fight a covert battle to take over the courthouse, the statehouse, the Congress, the White House.
On second thought, perhaps we have a frozen waterfall here…
“[Science] has a pretty good notion of what’s probable or possible, and virgin births…just aren’t on the list.”
Well, except for parthenogenetic species and the occasional instance of parthenogenesis in otherwise sexually reproducing species, just to nitpick a bit. Still, point taken overall.
Parthenogenic Jesus would be female.
Unless a miracle happened.
…or if Jesus is Woody Allen.
Cheers,
b&
If that were the case your miracle worker would need to be classified as a child murderer and child rapist.
“virgin births and carpenter rebirths”
Loved that one.
Angier is so GOOOOOOOD.
Well, she is very smart and funny.
A new book! This is bloody exciting. Is this the sequel to WEIT I asked for in the deGrasse Tyson post a few weeks ago? Also like Maru do you curl up in a box to do your best thinking?
Love that essay, and you quoted my favorite part: “How can a bench-hazed Ph. D., who might in an afternoon deftly purée a colleague’s PowerPoint presentation on the nematode genome into so much fish chow, then go home, read in a two-thousand-year-old chronicle, riddled with internal contradictions, of a meta-Nobel discovery like “Resurrection from the Dead,” and say, gee, that sounds convincing? Doesn’t the good doctor wonder what the control group looked like?
She’s got lots of awesome one-liners in that essay, but, far and away, the most important point is that scientists treat religion differently from astrology, and that’s a criminally inexcusable thing to do.
It’s especially egregious, considering that modern religion and astrology are basically nothing more than two branches of the pre-enlightenment quasi-scientific worldview. Indeed, it’s like being courteous to an alchemist but dismissing as a quack a doctor who still treats patients according to humorism.
There simply isn’t any rational and consistent basis on the merits alone to distinguish between religion and the other pseudosciences. It’s only cowardice (even if pragmatic) that can justify the kid gloves.
Cheers,
b&
“the most important point is that scientists treat religion differently from astrology”
I agree: that was her pointy-est point.
“doctor who still treats patients according to humorism”
I know what you’re getting at here Ben; but this is a good pun as well. Laugh therapy … 🙂
The four humors: the joke that’s not funny!
b&
Oh how often I have run afoul of skeptic groups that want to exclude religion from the topics of discussion on the grounds that in general it makes no testable claims. Specific testable claims, sure no problem, as an overall topic, can’t touch it.
Then you get the exact opposite stance on practically every other common skeptical topic from UFOs to homeopathy. Those belief systems have un-testable claims too, but somehow they are never the saving grace they are for religious worldviews.
Even getting called out on the preferential treatment on display in the same comment thread a la god/astronomy does not change their minds. I just don’t know what else can be done at that point.
Bah, the comparison should have been god/ASTROLOGY. I consider astronomy completely legitimate. Color me embarrassed.
My sign is Black Hole, what’s yours? 🙂
I keep fish. I’m an Aquarium.
/@
“I blinked and answered ‘neon’; I thought I’d blow her mind.”
I recently ran across this very thing with atheists providing cover with the likes of “untestable claims”, “faith moves mountains”, “christianity promoted literacy”, “it’s like hair or eye colour”.
Quite happy to discuss it as long as one joined the hallelujah chorus rather than voicing discord by asking for evidence.
Yep, that essay by Natalie is one of my favorites, I’ve read it more than once. She can be very punny, which is well-suited to a short essay, but in her book The Canon it got a bit tiresome and was distracting. The Canon was her attempt as a non-scientist to explain the essential truths that science has learned.
Oh, you beat me to this comment. I had trouble getting through The Canon because she seemed determined to get at least one zinger on every page, and often fell back on terrible puns. It’s too bad because her explanations of scientific concepts are very lucid when she stops trying to be “on” the whole time.
I’d compare her to our (well, the Bay Area’s) very own Mary Roach, who can write hilariously on (pop) science topics without seeming to strain at it.
I hope “The Canon” works for some – especially the science-fearing (or merely adverse) folks. It sure has a lot of good content in it. It didn’t work for me as well; it was like trying to read Dave Barry (US newspaper humorist) and Isaac Asimov at the same time. And I don’t go in so much for the former.
I’ve read Angier’s essay several times, and every time it is an unalloyed pleasure.
In the past I’ve almost always gone the route of the “Ask an astronomer” website, but his website here is an awfully good challenge to that.
However, I don’t know of anyone doing astrology who says it’s really a metaphor or allegory for some deeper truth except for a handful of Jungian psychologists.
Believe it or not, I’ve never read that essay. JC is right–pretty much the best essay ever written on the subject. Superlative wit and comedic timing.
Timing?
Pedantic point possibly-but even we non-scientists can see through the religious crap.
Just saying
. . . I recognize that science doesn’t have all the answers and doesn’t pretend to, and that’s one of the things I love about it.
Also, there are a lot of things for which science formerly had no answer that it now has provided answers to. This is something that should not be overlooked when dealing with smartass creationaries.
If we had all the answers science would be done. Knowing that we do not have the answer is the half the fun; the other half is looking for and maybe finding the answer. Science is about looking for the answers – in case God didn’t do it. Or in case God don’t exist.
will read all this anything to get my mind off trying to refinance my house-right.Also a lot of people will be praying for the tornado victims even though an agnostic will throw one up just in case.
If their praying isn’t less than worthless, why didn’t they pray that the tornado would be a no show? Are they praying that there won’t be any more? Jesus christ, christians need to start thinking ahead instead of claiming that killing children with a tornado is a miracle.
“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 [..] 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.”
I find this double standard really telling. It reminds me of discussions I’ve had elsewhere where so much is put on leaving open the mere possibility for God without really giving any thought to plausibility (similarly, would they leave open the possibility for a Eternal Transcendental Spider who weaved the universe into existence [OMG, string theory!]), meanwhile shooting down other ad hoc patterns that people impose over the universe. Why is that?
It’s funny that when it comes to god, there’s an implicit strive towards agnosticism, yet a similar reflection that people do for astrology should show that god is just as vacuous (and in much the same way) under the same light. People really do go all out to make room for nonsense in theological form, even when the apologetics would be considered special pleading when applied to almost anything else…
FIFY!
/@
<<>>
I beg to differ. A critical thinker requires a reason to believe in something, and a reason not to. If something is considered possible, no matter how unlikely, it must be considered possibly-true, unless and until there is evidence to justify a different point of view. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence or of presence.
Dr Kornreich’s outburst was fuelled by annoyance, not logic or rationality.
[quote]Dr. Kornreich ends his dismissal with the assertion that in science “one does not need a reason not to believe in something.”[/quote]
I beg to differ. A critical thinker requires a reason to believe in something, and a reason not to. If something is considered possible, no matter how unlikely, it must be considered possibly-true, unless and until there is evidence to justify a different point of view. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence or of presence.
Dr Kornreich’s outburst was fuelled by annoyance, not logic or rationality.
[For the sake of completeness, I should observe that, if something is considered possible, no matter how unlikely, it must be considered simultaneously possibly-true and possibly-false, unless and until there is evidence to justify a different point of view.]
Estimates of probability, **if we can justify the derivation of these estimates**, are much more valuable and practical, in such cases as these, than dogmatic assertions.