Common Ground?: Deep Faith and Deep Science

This topic is an outgrowth of a comment made in the thread The Problem with EvC:

quote:

---

No, the conflict is broader than between religion and science, and that conflict has peculiarities I'm not talking about here. I really am after something in this arena even if I haven't yet found the right terms for it. But I'll read Snow and see what he has to say. There are definitely two cultures, two mentalities, at odds with each other in such a way that communication is nearly impossible.

---

I find myself in almost complete agreement with the sentiment expressed here. Which is interesting, as the comment was made by someone who comes at the question from a diametrically opposed viewpoint to my own.I fully recognize that the shared viewpoint here represents but two points on a continuum - the extremes, if you will, that I have identified in the topic title as Deep Faith and Deep Science. I am aware that there are many readers who are closer to the middle ground, and some indeed that straddle the center. That is not at issue, and it is not the intent of this thread to explore the idea of whether or not such a divide actually exists. I would like to take it as a given that it does as a point of departure. I invite anyone - regardless of their position on this issue - to participate. Advice from the center may be highly useful, for instance.What I would like to explore in this thread is the question of whether or not the two “sides” can approach an understanding and consensus on solutions to problems that affect both. In other words, can the extremes in fact communicate with each other at least to the point where we can reach “common ground” on solving critical problems - problems, I submit, that have the potential to directly or indirectly cause the extinction of our species if not resolved.As my counterpart cogently pointed out, the first step requires definition of the problem. In that vein, I have created a “short list” of critical issues that I consider to be of signal importance. The list is not intended to be all-inclusive, and I invite others to add or subtract their own.1. Overpopulation. The human carrying capacity of the biosphere is rapidly approaching maximum. Science and technology, which has been very successful in increasing K_h over time is falling behind net growth rate. In other words, we are rapidly approaching the point where science is no longer capable of increasing K to meet human need. In natural populations, all other things being equal, this causes the population growth curve to level off - to reach an equilibrium. In other circumstances, when growth exceeds carrying capacity, the population crashes. There are reasons to believe the latter potential in our case.2. Ecosphere degradation. Anthropogenic effects are accumulating to the point that irrevocable degradation of the life-sustaining processes of the biosphere may be beginning to occur. Deforestation, climate change, pollution, over-harvesting, non-sustainable resource extraction, and bio-invasion are all contributing factors. In essence, this degradation reduces the capacity of the biosphere overall to maintain human existence.3. Globalization and emerging infectious disease. As humans penetrate deeper into as-yet-untouched natural areas, reservoirs of infectious diseases that we have as yet been unexposed to are being activated. Epizootic disease incidence is on the rise. Ebola Zaire, Rift Valley Fever, and even HIV-AIDS are examples. As ease of transportation between widely separated parts of the world increases, so to does the potential for global pandemics. In addition, coupled with increasing population is the increasing threat of ease of transmission between individual humans (the wildfire hypothesis), permitting diseases that would because of their high virulence rapidly burn out due to lack of local hosts spread globally.I have couched these three problems in scientific terms because that is how I perceive them, and how I relate to them. However, I do NOT intend this thread to be solely the province of scientists and science - that would tend to defeat the purpose. In addition, the above list is not expected to be the sole (or perhaps even the major) area of discussion. I firmly believe that these highly inter-related problems represent the greatest threat to the continued existence of the human species, and that indeed some of the canaries in the human mineshaft have already died. On the other hand, I’d like this to be open to other questions. If this thread serves no other purpose than deriving two distinct lists of critical problems, as perceived by the two “sides”, then I feel it will have been a valid exercise.I request that this PNT be placed in Misc. Topics in Cre-Evo. My primary reason is that I would like to hold the science side to the slightly higher evidentiary requirements of a science thread. On the other hand, I would request that deviations from those requirements on the part of the faith side be treated leniently.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

An issue well-spotted Quetzal. Is there a way to phrase things so as to allow for a more open ended, dare I say, 50/50 split? That would better neutralize the tired old arguments - if nothing else. There is something other than science-only /faith-only to be examined here. And it seems that if it starts outs with with a predetermined authority (even if only hinted at) the discussion is doomed from the start.

I don't disagree with you. I tried to phrase both the OP and the placement request with that in mind. Unfortunately, I think we're limited in choices here: coffee house is too open, it's definitely not Bible study, etc. Certainly my intent is to make this as 50/50 as possible. Open to suggestions.In any case, I hope you'll participate. In fact, I'm counting on you and Faith at least to weigh in here.

Hi Quetzal, I'm glad to see you got the thread started. It's not much related to the subject I had in mind, but maybe I can work mine into it since you are clear you don't want to limit it to your specifically scientific considerations. Not sure how this is going to work out but am willing to see.But I may have to wait a bit to get into it. I ordered the Snow book, The Two Cultures cheapo deal, and thought I'd have it by now, but should have by tomorrow at the latest -- I hope. I don't know how helpful the book will be for my own purposes, but it has an intro that is advertised to give a comprehensive overview of the historical development of the controversy, and that may help me organize my thoughts.

OH, also, a reminder:I don't see this as particularly a conflict between RELIGION and SCIENCE as your title suggests, and your quote of my earlier statement in fact shows me saying that I don't.Snow's Two Cultures are something like Science versus ivory tower literary intellectuals, and I'm not sure how his argument goes except that he thinks the literary types are being snobbish to the scientists.If anything I see the scientists being snobbish to whatever the other side is, which I have yet to define to my satisfaction.Just trying to think about it now I can tell this isn't going to be easy to sort out. But I'll leave it here for now.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not sure about my own ability to contribute at the moment, Q. I'm a learner-driver. I know what cars can do but I can't make it go in the direction I want.I'm reading an (insofar as I can grasp it) interesting book at present, which revolves around how major landfalls in science: Newtonian, GR, QM..even unto Hawking have changed our view of God ...or the gap which he enables. What is becoming clear to me is that God (or the gap) is as-ever enticingly beyond our grasp as it ever was.What my intuition tells me is that your science and my faith both attempt to approach the question of God. And until one or the other inflicts a mortal wound then both can be considered to hold unknown hand of cards. And so they should be considered at the outset (from the others perspective), as equal players.If you want to get further than the usual argument here then I see no other way than an explicit 50/50. The thread might have appeared to soon for me to contribute but if it takes flight then I will do what I can.

quote:

---

Snow's Two Cultures are something like Science versus ivory tower literary intellectuals, and I'm not sure how his argument goes except that he thinks the literary types are being snobbish to the scientists.

---

Not really - it's been years since I read it but I'm pretty sure that he was clear that it cut both ways. Also many of his concepts are shaped by a pretty narrow experience of the UK Higher Education system! (and a rather charming and simple faith that science could solve all the problems in the world).(I could of course be wrong about all this because it was quite a few years ago when I last picked it up).

Yes, I gather it's quite outdated and possibly culturebound too, but at the least it's sparked some thought about what some of us recognize as a real cultural divide, even if his concepts don't quite capture it. I wanted to get this particular book at least as much for the introduction that the Amazon reviewers said is a great overview of the whole controversy, and that may turn out to be very useful for my purposes.ANYTHING on the subject of an apparent clash between science and ... the rest of us ... or some as-yet-unnamed category ... would be interesting to me at the moment. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith. Thanks for your comments to date. My intent for this thread was not really to discuss whether or not there is a divide that needs to be bridged - I think we can take that as a given. I also think we may be jumping the gun a bit on determining from where the problem derives - that might be quite significant in the resolution phase as the intent is to see if the gap can be bridged. Understanding where both sides are coming from - and why the gap exists - could be a good way of starting there.As you noted to me earlier, framing the problems that effect all of us, regardless of worldview, may be a logical first step. I threw out three issues that I personally believe are critical to our very survival: overpopulation, environmental destruction, and globalization in the context emerging diseases. Perhaps we could start from there, either by discussing the three I put forward, or by you coming up with other issues you feel are more critical. (Note: I'm using the "you" generically here - I hope others will express themselves on this as well).At least initially, I'd like to avoid an Us vs. Them kind of argument. That's the reason I chose the title as Faith AND Science, vice Faith vs. Science. I recognize we might end up there, but that's not really where I think we should start.

Let me add to my previous post a thought. Maybe even I'm jumping the gun a bit. It might be a good idea for me to simply ask you if you thought the three issues I started with were even problems at all from your perspective? If not, then perhaps you could explain what would constitute high-magnitude problems...

Well, they aren't the KIND of problems I was thinking about, and I'll have to take some time to think about them, especially since I'm waiting to get Snow's book and have some other things pressing for my attention until some time tomorrow.

Faith didn't have a comment (yet). I'll comment.I think most scientists would see these as serious problems. Oops, make that most physical scientists. Many non-scientists would not see these as problems at all.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that communication is impossible. I think instead the problem is that the two sides often choose not to talk about the same thing.I may have some comments below on whether some or all of the proposed problems are serious problems or not, so for the moment, I'll take on a different issue that I think most or all would agree is a serious problem; abortion. Obviously, many people of faith consider it to be murder of innocent human beings. However, even for those who do not think a fetus is a human being, I don't know anyone who thinks an abortion is a good thing. It's bad when it happens and it would be in everyone's interest to reduce the incidence of it. (I do hope we can just agree on that much without getting bogged down in an argument about why it's a bad thing.)People of faith who oppose it on moral grounds simply demand that it be outlawed and expend most of their effort working toward that goal. The effort they spend trying to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy is almost entirely directed into "Just Say No." While I do believe that teaching abstinence (should be taught in the home or church, values inculcation has no place in public school) can reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, I also believe the incidence can be reduced further by a thorough education in contraception, and making sure that those who are going to have sex also have access to contraception. However, for the most part, those faiths that work the hardest to outlaw abortion also vehemently oppose teaching and making available contraception. If everyone could come together to put together a comprehensive program extolling the virtues of abstinence along with information on prevention, I suspect great progress could be made.Now, thoughts on the "problems" proposed. I wasn't necessarily going to comment on these, but in a later post, you invited it, so here goes.Overpopulation.I don't believe this is a problem any more than it was when Malthus wrote about it. In this regard, my own personal faith comes into play, along with science. I have a deep faith in the creativity and inventiveness of the human mind. To me, more people doesn't mean more problems, it means more minds to draw from for solutions. I believe people are this planet's greatest natural resource.Are we close to running at full capacity of our arable land? Well then, we'll do what we've been doing for over 100 years, increase that capacity. Or, here's another damn interesting idea: Z-Axis Urban Agriculture. Z-Axis Urban Agriculture: The Vertical Farm Project • Damn InterestingThe only limit to our ability to think up new solutions is the number of minds we can have working on the problems. Ergo, more minds equals more solutions.Ecosphere degradation.See above.Moreover, there are so damn many different axes to grind on this topic, I find it near impossible to know who to believe. It seems like most of the talk about what's going to happen to the environment is based on models that can be easily tweaked to say exactly what one wants them to say.It seems like there are an awful lot of people running around aghast at the fact that humans are changing the ecosphere. What is so damned sacred about the state of the ecosphere at this particular moment in time that we need to preserve it forever? The planet's been in constant flux since it first coalesced from interstellar gas. It's going to change in the future. We'll find solutions to the problems that arise, whether those problems are due to our actions or a natural progression of the planet's climate.****I do agree that the problems that we have are made more difficult to solve because of the divide you describe. From my perspective, I think the major contributing factor to the divide is that there are some things that some people of faith will not address in certain ways. See my abortion discussion above as an example. More than that, not only will they not address them in certain ways, they try to prevent others from doing so as well.If there are things that science will not address, it's because they are things that are outside the purview of science; morality and values, for example. Beyond those types of things, scientists are intensely curious about everything in the natural world. The difference is that, while science does not speak to questions of morality or values, it doesn't try to stop others who do want to address those matters.I earlier said that the only limit to our ability to solve problems is the number of minds available to work on those solutions. That's only true of people of faith don't prohibit exploration of all possible solutions.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

It hid the economic past of Malthus for post-Darwinians and so hiding it is impossible to tell IF there is indeed any difference that IS sacred.

quote:

---

What is so damned sacred about the state of the ecosphere at this particular moment in time that we need to preserve it forever?

---

Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.