There's so much talk and writing about the conflict of science and religion these days that I hesitate to say anything about it here. Not only would I inevitably offend someone, but I would once and for all reveal myself to be a "deluded" religious believer, unworthy to enter into the rigorous world of science. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to say something about it. I see a lot of brilliant people who just don't get it. What do I mean by this? It's going to take more than one Electron posting to set it all down. If you are bored by all this, then please mosey on over to the Edge where the really brilliant people in science and philosophy talk about this subject, and some of them actually do "get it," for instance the physicist Lawrence Krauss. I will sound silly compared to these people. But here I am anyway.

The usual "liberal" approach to the question of whether science and religion are in conflict is the now-classic "dual magisteria" form taken by the late Steven Jay Gould in his book, ROCKS OF AGES. In this small volume, Gould patiently states that religion and science belong to two different spheres, each with its own appropriate way of thinking. The wrongness and conflict happen when one of these spheres attempts to enforce its way on the other, rather than remaining within itself. So that if scientists try to impose their way of thought on religion, that's not right, and if the religious believers try to impose their way on science, that's very wrong.

But of course that's what happens all the time, and it's happening now as it has for the last few hundred years since the rise of exact and rational science. Religion states a "cosmology," that is a story about the origin of the universe. Religion also assumes that miracles which defy the laws of science, such as resurrections from the dead, happen in the "real world." Thus scientists claim that these assumptions and stories can be proven wrong by science. The claims of religion can and should be tested with the experimental method of science, and if they don't hold up, then they should be discarded as a scientific hypothesis would be.

Meanwhile, religious believers in recent centuries (again, since the rise of rationalism) have devised "scientific" or more accurately pseudo-scientific justifications for their religious beliefs, most recently Creationism and "intelligent design." Biblical literalism in its current form is, paradoxically, a product of rationalism. It's an attempt to make rational sense out of something which came from a pre-modern and essentially pre-rational culture.

So far I haven't said anything that anyone else writing about this wouldn't say, and I run the risk of being boring. Many, perhaps most outspoken scientist-writers are atheists, and some of them insist that a true scientist must be an atheist. Nothing in belief should be held without experimental proof, and if experimental proof fails to give positive results, the belief, whether in God or any other religious claim, should be discarded. The more tolerant members of the scientific community are willing to admit that in some rare cases, religion might improve people's lives and lead to ethical, helpful behavior, but that's all the support they can admit for it.

Meanwhile, the fundamentalists and the creationists, who use the media and words brilliantly and who are skilled at manipulating people's hopes and fears, have so dominated the public view of religion that a pro-science, pro-evolution religious view is nearly impossible to stand up for. The scientific types, who are threatened by the fundamentalists and creationists, naturally use their powers to combat this type of religion. If I, or anyone else, complains that the scientists are mistaking the nature of religion, I am told that their conflict is with the fundamentalists and the creationists and that I should not mistakenly think that they are criticizing ALL religion (though I have heard words exactly to this effect by many scientists), and basically I should shut up. Not that I have much of an influential voice in any of this anyway.

Are we stuck with Gould's mild-mannered "separate but equal" program, where science goes on doing its thing in the laboratories and telescopes and space probe missions and geological expeditions, while religion should stay home with humanity and take care of people's ethical and social problems? I don't disagree with Gould, but I have quite a different outlook on that solution. It is a highly personal solution that I wouldn't wish on anyone else, but in my next entry I'll share it with you anyway.

Posted at 2:10 am | link