Article: Religion and Science

Then there's no such thing as the first, only the second. Doesn't it have to? Isn't that why we have an entirely separate, more lenient criminal justice system for minors?But empiricism doesn't mean that we all have to induct separately; just as in science, communication means that we share the results of another individual's hard work. What about his victims?I mean that pretty much answers it for me. I don't need a highfalutin' moral precept to know that society has an interest in disallowing personal pleasure at the cost of someone else's involuntary suffering. Consider the two potentialities: one is, you steal from me, the other is that you do not.Now, which of those outcome leads to the greatest suffering? If we're talking about my new TV, probably the first. If we're talking about bread, and your family is starving, probably the second.Like I said I don't see a need to appeal to a principle that I have no way to verify, when an empiric consideration of the consequences shows me how to act.At any rate, I think we've certainly demonstrated that your initial premise is suspect - there's enough overlap, science extends far enough into the domain of ethics and guidance that it is incorrect to assert that religion provides something that science cannot. Religion is one way to understand your place in the world; science is another. In that sense they do compete.

Firstly I am going to disagree with Crashfrog.Empiricism offers precisely one contribution to moral decisions. The opportunity to make INFORMED moral decisions. That's an important issue but it isn't foundational to morality.But I have my doubts about the relevance of religion to morality, too. Yes, it can inspire moral behaviour but it can also inspire people to set aside ordinary morality and act in ways that we would consider wrong or even monstrous. (Jonestown, and Heaven's Gate offer two examples but there are many more, such as this recent case : BBC NEWS | Europe | Crucified nun dies in 'exorcism')At it's worst religion offers a complete denial of anything I could consider morality. Instead it offers a set of rules backed only by the supposed authority of a tyrant God.If there is a foundation for morality then in my view it is in the positive aspects of human nature - in fairness, honesty, empathy and compassion.

Dear Faith,You wrote: Understood -- it can help us a great deal if we define our terms. As I understand it, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that the bible is the literal word of God. For people who take such a literal interpretation of the bible, there is no room for allegorical interpretations. Everything must be understood literally. So for example, if I or some clergy member argues that the creation stories of Genesis (books one and two) are essentially symbolic -- that they illustrate the relationship between God and Man, but do so in a language not of science, but in the language of poetry which speaks not to the mind, but to the soul for the purpose of spiritual transformation, a fundamentalist or young earth creationist will necessarily call me or that clergy member on it, and boldly state that we are calling God a liar. (I know that you have not done this, and I appreciate it. You may or may not think that I am right on this point, but I believe you can at least recognize my sincerity with respect to this issue.)A Fundamentalist or Young Earth Creationist will claim that if there is any discrepancy between the bible and the discoveries of science, then clearly it is science which is in error. But if one admits that the stories of Genesis, the garden, and Noah's flood are allegorical, then there is no conflict between evolutionary science and Christianity -- although there could still be conflicts between some proponents of evolutionary science -- particularly those proponents of evolutionary science who have difficulty understanding the limits of empirical science, that empirical science is no substitute for religion or philosophy, any more than religion or philosophy are a substitute for empirical science.Now I understand that there are some fairly significant differences between Christian Fundamentalism and the Evangelicism which followed. For example, there are some texts which play a fairly prominent role in the Evangelical movement which would of necessity lack any authority as far as a Fundamentalist is concerned. Likewise, there is the doctrine of the rapture, which as far as I am aware, has no basis in the bible, but was instead a fairly recent innovation. And there are undoubtedly many other differences. Unfortunately, I have some difficulty keeping track of all of the differences of doctrine (much of which is actually quite minor) between different denominations of Christianity. For example, the use of the phrase "... by faith alone" if used in the context of how one knows God might get you in trouble with Catholicism, not because of how you are using it, but because of certain other associations with doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. At some point, I might wish to plumb some of these differences if only for the sake of understanding, but my time is limited, and there is so much that I wish to learn across a good number of disciplines. For example, there are technical papers on recent discoveries in evolutionary science which I would like to be able to follow from start to end, but currently lack the expertise for really doing so. Then there are discoveries in physics and astronomy, issues related to the emergence of diseases, and various developments in politics. And it would always be a good thing to learn more about history. For the purpose of a discussion such as this, it certainly helps to use the right labels. But at the same time, I can understand the convenience of using a more familiar label which may not be entirely accurate. As for Billy Graham, although I am not as familiar with him as I might like to be, from what I have seen, he is quite honest, perhaps even too honest for his own good (i.e., such as when at a reporter's request he demonstrated in front of the Whitehouse how he had prayed with the president -- and thereby embarassed Eisenhower almost to point of never being invited back again). As far as I am able to see, he has a very good, decent soul.Likewise, while there were points upon which I disagreed with Pope John Paul II, there were times when I most certainly agreed with his actions and views. One was his suggestion of making Jeruselem into a city-state, neither under the control of Palestine nor under the control of Israel -- but I realize this may be a touchy subject for some. Another was when he excommunicated dominican theologian Matthew Fox -- who both he and I regarded as an enemy of the very essence of the Catholic Church and even of that which makes it Christian. Let Mr. Fox create his own religion, if he can, but not under the auspices of the Catholic Church and most certainly not on its dime. (Honestly, I think he would enjoy about as much success were he to try to invent a "natural language," but that is his problem, not mine.)Are you a fundamentalist by my standards? Given what I have seen, clearly not. One very important point is the degree of your civility when dealing with someone who disagrees with you on a number of issues, although perhaps not that many issues which are especially relevant to him. From what I have seen, you are quite willing to engage in dialogue -- and this is a critical issue which a great many people who are not Fundamentalists have a problem with -- they will assume that those who disagree with them on one issue or another are necessarily the enemy, and will seek to win an argument by any means necessary -- rather than view a dialogue as essentially a cooperative affair between equals for the joint purpose of discovery, whatever the differences of opinion. So certainly on this point, we have something very important in common. Or at the very least, so it seems. But at the same time, I think it is understandable if we both have some reservations.However, despite the fact that we have been communicating in much the same style, there can still be some major differences of opinion on issues of importance to this discussion. For example, do you accept the Separation of Church and State? I do, and I believe it is of considerable importance not just to non-Christians, but for Christians as well. Once the Separation of Church and State has been undermined, there will exist the opportunity to use the State as a weapon in a conflict between religious sects. And while one religious sect may temporarily assume control and assume that it can remain in control, it is quite possible that in the process of erecting its means of control, it will simply be facilitating greater centralized power which will fall into the hands of another sect -- or which will be used against itself by some of its own less scrupulous members in the name of greater doctrinal purity, but for the sake of acquiring greater power. Once the Separation of Church and State is undermined, you will begin to see politicians who wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves. Such men will not be truly religious, they will not truly believe. They will be demagogues who do not respect the religious beliefs which they profess. We have in fact seen some such men earlier in the history of the United States. Two which jump readily to mind are Colonel Custer (who sought to ride his war against the native americans into the White House), and Senator Joseph McCarthy. Likewise, it should be remembered that Adolf Hitler did much to promote his image as some kind of moral idealist among the Germans.If you agree that there is a need for the Separation of Church and State -- which I see as the guardian of religious tolerance, then we have a point of agreement. If not, then we have a point for further discussion.Another point may be abiogenesis, with which I would find myself in some disagreement even among some supporters of evolution. At this point, it may seem reasonable to conclude that science cannot answer how life arose from lifelessness. However, I do not believe that it will always be that way -- they are making a good deal of progress in explaining how life could and would arise as a natural process -- and given the pace, I would expect that we will have a fairly clear idea of the general process within the next ten to fifteen years. But given the fact that we have not yet arrived at some fairly well substantiated, some people still feel that this is safe territory for a miracle. And to the extent that people become emotionally and psychologically invested in the view that science cannot answer these questions, the closer science gets to answering them, the more this will hurt those who have become so invested.I hope you don't mind, but I would like to bring in a point from one of your earlier posts which I really should have addressed then, but will have to turn to now: I can understand the desire to try to make the case for unbelievers in this fashion. But given the form in which the message is delivered, it is all too easy for the less experienced Christians to become confused and assume that the message was meant for them as well. And then we fall into the issues of a faith which attempts to ground itself in science. Moreover, this kind of approach is likely to result in a needless conflict between religion and science (particularly when someone who isn't especially concerned with the science attempts to force it into a defense of their religious beliefs), and is likely to result in many people believing that they have to choose or the other, that if, for example, they are well-educated, they can't possibly be religious, and that religion is simply a relic of the past.But it has been my own experience that there is no correlation between religious belief and intelligence. Moreover, one of my rough and ready standards for judging whether or not a given individual of intelligence is rational or not is whether they are willing to accept the theories of Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. By this standard, a great many religious individuals do quite well, whereas a great many atheists who are presumably dedicated to reason do quite poorly. Given this context, the creation of an unnecessary conflict between religion and science is clearly a disservice to both. But by being both religious and genuinely interested in science (if such is the case), you can show that there is no conflict between religion and science.However, this still leaves open the question of bringing people to God -- something which I believe I owe you inasmuch as I have argued that one should not (mis-)use science for that purpose. Here are the steps that I would recommend:1. Teach by example. Try to the best of your ability to live up to the beliefs and ethics which you profess, and in the process you will come to have a deeper understanding of them.
2. Be open to establishing friendships with those who do not necessarily agree with you.
3. Be willing to engage in dialogue, for it is through dialogue that you will discover what a person really believes and why they believe it. Moreover, the more someone opens up to you, the better you will understand the personal issues which they face.
4. Once you have a clear understanding of the ethics which guide you and a clear understanding of the personal issues which they face, you will be in a better position to offer them gentle guidance in dealing with those issues, and thereby be able to demonstrate the relevance of your religious beiefs in their lives. The rest should proceed quite naturally.Take care,
TimThis message has been edited by TimChase, 06-20-2005 06:36 PM

I would say that religion at its worse is no worse that human nature at its worse whether or not religion is specifically involved -- religion provides a conceptual framework of sorts through which to view the world, much like a political ideology, such as classical liberalism, Nazism, or Marxism. For a quick aside, I would say, however, that in contrast to a political ideology, the guidance provided has typically withstood the test of experience for a great many of individuals over a good number of generations, although to some extent, this is no doubt due to its ability to adapt to new contexts. And of course, other elements may very well be involved.Classical liberalism (and likewise, modern liberalism) are essentially open frameworks which do not expect of their adherents the kind of total dedication which prevents their adherents from making use of alternative frameworks when those frameworks are more appropriate. Nazism and Marxism, on the otherhand, do. So does any cult which requires total allegiance to the exclusion of being able to see any other point of view.I will briefly list a few of the qualities which I have found in cult-like organizations -- or to be more precise -- while simply analyzing a response from an individual on another list. (Note: this is by no means meant to be conclusive -- just consider them signs to look out for.)1. An inability to even consider or look at a viewpoint which differs from one's own.Examples of this would include the kind of hold which ideologies such as Marxism and Nazism have held upon their followers in the past -- there is only one framework that the individual may be permitted to view the world through, and anything which cannot be easily integrated with that viewpoint must be dismissed outofhand. Such an approach is usually inculcated by leaders which wish to have followers with unquestioning obedience, and is typically quite prevailent among cults -- which also tend to isolate followers from family and friends who are not a part of the movement.2. A strong us vs. them type mentality.3. A tendency to dismiss any science out-of-hand which comes into conflict with one's ideological beliefs.4. The tendency to use appeal to emotion or ad hominem attacks when faced with an inanswerable rational argument.5. A tendency to see grand conspiracies everywhere -- but particularly certain powers that be -- which hide the true nature of reality from everyone except those who agree with you.6. The twin stigmatas of feelings of victimization and persecution.One example of this would include the Germans felt this after World War I -- given the literature which bread anti-Semitism, they felt victimized by the Jews. Given the economic burdens imposed upon them by the victorious side, they felt persecuted by the West. Given the twin stigmatas of injustice, they felt justified in acting unjustly towards others -- in the name of a higher cause, which in this case was a Greater Germany. Similar patterns occur at many points in history, with the Serbian-Croatian war being one of the most recent. Similarly, some cults (e.g., Moonies and Hari Krishnas) use such stigmatas and transcendant causes to justify lies told to those who are -- in their view -- unwittingly in league with the forces of evil and darkness.Twentieth Century TotalitarianismAs no doubt many religious and nonreligious people on this list are well aware, in the past century, totalitarianism killed over 100 million people -- if we just consider the people who were not casualties of war from only three countries:Nazi Germany: 11 million (6 m jews and 5 m gentile)
Stalinist Russia: 30 million
Maoist China: 60 millionAnd of course there were a great many other countries where genocide took place, particularly in parts of Asia and Africa. In some cases, the ideologies which lead to such genocides were secular. For example, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China (although no doubt they took a number of lessons from religion in one way or another -- twisted, perhaps, in order to create unquestioning obedience). In other cases, they represented revolts against modernity (e.g., Nazi Germany -- with its interest in the occult and in the creation of an Aryan religion grounded in some mythical past; Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge -- although one should remember that their leaders studied existentialist philosophy in France; Islamic Fundamentalism; and Shinto Nationalism in Japan).Religion at its worse is no doubt quite bad. Yet the same may be said of secular philosophies at their worse. And one thing which traditional religions have going for them (as opposed to some recently created cult or political-philosophic ideology) is the fact that they have stood the test of time and typically evolved into something which is fairly compatible with modern society.A Secular Foundation for Morality This may very well be the case. However, there are other qualities which you might wish to consider as well: authenticity, rationality, courage, and integrity. Interestingly, the more we add to the list of such aspects, the more relationships we see between them.In any case, I would not argue that religion is the only thing which one may look to for the source of ethics. As I stated in the first paragraph, albeit in parentheses: This more secular view of a possible foundation for ethics would fall into that category -- or it could be shared in common by religious and non-religious alike. Such a foundation may be sufficient for some. Others might require a foundation which is itself grounded in their religious beliefs. Still others might choose to ask why these qualities and not others? And, what specifically do we mean when we speak of these qualities? Can one justify them in terms of something else which is more fundamental, or in the case of a disagreement, do people simply have to go their separate ways? These qualities are fairly abstract, much like "liberty" itself. And with this in mind, it is perhaps worth recalling something once said by Abraham Lincoln: For example, in caste-based societies, fairness may be conceived in quite a different way. And in some societies, the concept of rationality may not be something which one can simply take for granted. It would appear, for example, that Descartes understanding of rationality differed quite significantly from our modern day conception of it, and that even among our contemporaries, there can be quite significant controversies regarding its meaning.A foundation for ethics? Quite possibly, and quite possibly enough for the individual who understands what he himself means. One possibility would be to argue that they are somehow known intuitively, and that this form of intuition is something which is somehow shared by all individuals. In this way, one might seek a universal foundation for human ethics. Yet justifying such an intuition within a philosophic framework might prove nearly as difficult as attempting to justify faith.In any case, I would have people remember that, for example, when asked whether they believed in God, in one recent poll, only two percent of the Americans that were surveyed responded in the negative. But by the same token, sixty-one percent believed that religious leaders should not try to influence government decisions.AP Poll: Religion Key in American Lives
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Brea...Though it may be difficult for some members of the evolutionary science community to admit, defending evolutionary science within a society which is so decidedly religious may very well require us to come to terms in some fashion with those who are religious. However, in my view, this will require little of members of either the scientific or religious communites beyond giving up the fear of the Other and learning how to deal with each other as equals.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-20-2005 11:43 PM

I'll just reply to one point. Considered at the level of an individual religion might be no worse than "human nature at it's worst". However religion and religious-like ideologies can - as you note - mobilise many individuals. Thus it can be a force which spreads and reinforces the worst in human nature as well as the best.As such, in my view, we cannot simply allocate morality to be the province of religion. Accepting a religious figure as a moral authority simply on the grounds that he or she is a religious figure would be wrong and dangerous.

I guess I can answer your post generally by saying that by your standard I am a fundamentalist as I do read the scripture literally.I also don't yet see the danger you are trying to lay out about appealing to natural phenomena as proofs of God, though mostly I think it's ineffective.You cover many side issues in this post as well, which it seems to me belong in another thread and are likely to get into long drawn-out discussions, so I decided to leave them for now.

Paul,I would have to agree with your sense of ambivilence regarding religion -- it can reinforce the worst, as can other ideologies, but religion will sometimes act a larger scale. However, in a country where there exists a wall of separation between church and state, and where there are a fair number of denominations, I believe this power is typically quite diminished. I am not talking about allocating morality to the province of religion -- that might put a few too many philosophy professors out of work, for one thing, and just think about the economic reprocussions that might have...Seriously, each individual must ultimately choose the ethics which they will follow. For the good majority of our citizens, this ethics will be of a religious nature -- no matter what we may choose to do or say. But each individual is free to choose their own moral guide, whatever that may be. For example, if you are a baptist scientist, you have no reason to accept the moral authority of the pope. And even if you are a catholic scientist, you have every much reason to be able to disagree with him as president Kennedy did. In essence, I am not asking you or anyone to grant any more moral authority to religious leaders than they already have.But if I were a member of a scientific community sending a scientist to meet with a Catholic organization or deliver a good will speech, I would probably pick a Catholic scientist. And the same would hold true of any other denomination. Moreover, such scientists should be free at the very least -- as they already are -- to express their faith in a religious context (but preferably without any kind of social stigma -- which may or may not be the case), and doing so would also be a measure of good will. (And of course, similar to yourself, I would argue that we -- simply as citizens of a nation -- should always be on the lookout for demagogues, no matter what pulpit they may choose to stand behind.)What I would argue, however, is that even between people who disagree, it should be possible to have dialogue. But in this case, what I am suggesting is maintaining a low level of dialogue between scientists of a given denomenation and the denomonation itself at a grassroots level, if there is sufficient interest on both sides. I think there might be. Under such conditions, it should be possible to maintain a certain level of mutual respect and trust, and for some degree of cooperation which would be of benefit to the parties involved. And certainly at the very least, communication is rarely a bad thing, don't you think?In any case, I have noticed a fair amount of good will on the parts of churches towards evolutionary science already:An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
Page not found - University of Wisconsin Oshkosh University of Wisconsin OshkoshThis project was going well before I wrote my article, but I wasn't aware of it until afterwards. Yet when I saw the project, it made all the sense in the world. Over 4000 clergy from a good number of denominations (many of which are quite conservative) have "stood up" (at least online) and said that they see no conflict between evolution and Christianity, and moreover, that they regard evolution as a foundational truth of modern science. That is a great deal of goodwill. But with a little encouragement (such as what my article is intended for), they may be willing to do a bit more. Something to consider.

TimYou may also want to research just who has appeared, stood up, in opposition to the teaching of Creationism. You'll find that a significant percentage of the folk carrying the fight are religious leaders. From a theological perspective, I feel that the science folk have let us down because they hesitate to criticize folk when Creationists fall back on playing the Religious Trump Card.It has been religious folk, folk like Bishop Sims and others that have said the Literalist viewpoint regarding Genesis is both bad science and even worse theology. It's time for everyone to put down the gloves and quit treating Ignorance in the name of Religion as something acceptable. It's not. It is time to speak up and label the folk in the Kansas school Board as Ignorant, not religious.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I whole-heartedly agree with virtually everything you have to say.As I said: I may not know the particulars in a given state as to who is organizing the opposition to bringing intelligent design into the classrooms, but it wouldn't suprise me in the least if it is in a large percentage of the cases churches which understand what is at stake -- as they realize it is not just a matter of the separation of Church and Science, but a separation of Church and State, and that without this separation, they will become vulnerable to any religious movement with political ambitions. Moreover, I have been seeing letters to the editor written by clergy in defense of evolution. Their interests coincide with ours. Many of them realize this. It is time that we realize it as well.One small thing which could be done quite easily would be for the major evolution websites to display prominently the link which I have given above on their main webpage. However, I have had some difficulty getting through to them -- perhaps a few of you know of people who are better connected. I would include a message of the form,"If you are religious and support evolution, you may wish to see whether clergy at your church would be interested in signing the following document."Unless there is a good reason for not doing so, at the very least, we should be supporting our supporters.And we should look for ways of working with them which extend beyond the web.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-21-2005 02:08 PM

I agree that there is no need for conflict between religion and science or even Christianity and science. From my personal experience I am not even sure that many of the "Christian" opponents of evolution should be considered to be truly Christian at all. They certainly don't seem to act in the way I was taught a Christian should act.My concern is solely in the comments on religion and morality because of the dangers I percieve.

Understood.If I may, I would like to bring in a somewhat analogous situation...There have been geniuses in the past, some even within this last century (although I would certainly hesitate to bring up their names), people whose intelligence illuminated large parts of our world. However, because of the fact that they were so brilliant, they oftentimes became surrounded by people who -- after a while -- were unable to disagree with them and could only tell them how brilliant they were. In such a context, particularly with a mind capable of making connections between seemingly distant elements of the world, it is easy for them to become disconnected from the dialogue of human discourse. In contrast to the synchophants which geniuses would end up being surrounded by as their own light begins to fade, a good friend would be there to insure that the genius remains connected to the world.If you desire to help someone make the right choices, there is oftentimes no better way to begin than by being their good friend.Without dialogue, you give up nearly all influence which you might otherwise have.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-21-2005 03:32 PM

I do understand that there is more which the scientific communities could be doing in the defense of both the separation of Church and Science and the separation of Church and State.If you will notice, I made a great deal of use of the term "properly" in my paper.Religion and Science:
Message 1This was no accident -- and undoubtedly a number of people picked up on this, quite possibly including yourself.By using the term "properly," I was able to describe the way things ought to be while making it sound as if I was describing the way that things are. Oftentimes there is very little divergence between the two. For example, I believe that most clergy teach some form of the intellectual courage which I describe -- otherwise divorce would be far more prevailent than it already is. Moreover, when I had religious people read the piece, it seemed quite familiar to them.But in describing how things ought to be, I was also describing how people ought to act. Now if I had said that, "this is what they ought to do," people could have reacted simply by telling me, "Who are you to tell us what to do?!" But by selecting the language which I used, I was already describing them at their best.Nevertheless, at some point, I needed to make it clear that there is a normative force behind the document. I chose to make it apparent after I had already made evident that there is already a great deal at stake for the clergy who care. But the normativity of the vision exists whereever the term "properly" is used, and of course, elsewhere. Essentially, a subtle form of encouragement to do what is right by showing things the way they ought to be.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-21-2005 04:56 PM

ABE: Sorry, I should have addressed this directly to Tim.I think your philosophical objectives as stated are noble ones, but I am a bit tentative about their practical application. For example there are many instances when religious and scientific teachings clearly conflict in what they explicitly or implicitly proscribe for humanity. These do not constitute simply a lack of mutual understanding on some issue, but rather diametrically opposed implications for humanity. I'll take one of my favorite examples. The global overpopulation problem. Most ecologists agree we are destroying the planet and the only stabilizing solution is to reduce our population growth. Since I am an ecological entomologist I strongly concur with this analysis because I am all to familiar with the data on which it is based. So along comes Faith, for example, and says to me, you are clearly wrong because the Bible told us to "go forth and multiply". How can this conflict be resolved through any dialogue between the two communities. Viewed from a scientific perspective, it boils down to exactly what Jar commented. How much ignorance and missinformation propagated by religion can be 'tolerated' by science?This message has been edited by EZscience, 06-21-2005 03:55 PM

I asked this question earlier in the thread and I'm still hoping for an answer. I'm obviously missing something about the concept of intelligent design. When I talk about ID I am only saying that I believe that there is an intelligence outside of the physical that created the universe. I'm not saying that it is scientific or anything else.What is it about ID as you understand it that is wrong, and how do you understand it?

Understood.Clearly there are other potential conflicts, and in fact I say as much. I recognize the fact that some churches are less enlightened with respect to some of the problems facing humanity today. But if there is dialogue, I believe it may be possible to overcome them. In truth, the problems of overpopulation and the ecology, and most especially the problem of emerging epidemics were on my mind as well, and I know that many of you share these concerns. They would be reasons for a continuing dialogue. But where the dialogue which I have proposed goes will ultimately be decided by the participants, not me.This message has been edited by TimChase, 06-21-2005 06:59 PM