|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
| |
Religious faith -and-
science : partners, combatants, Link to/excerpts from a recent article of a debate between two prominent scientists regarding how best to handle the differences between science and religious faith. Of interest, the manner in which the two scien- tists speak of scientific 'seduction', reminding me of the manner in which I perceive religious pleasant immortality promises as the ultimate seduction. Certainly, science can be seductive -if- one is interested in open-minded search for truth within the realm of evidence, logic, and reason bounded by the limitations of natural law. Even the most religious individuals tend to most often accept the nature of reality, as described by science, in the present day. It's only when aspects of science directly conflict with religious claims, or when issues of ultimate causality or supernatural intervention come into play, that a significant number of the religious tend to drift away from accepting science. For pro-human scientists, scientific pursuits are oft-times accompanied by a strong interest in improving the plight of humankind in this one and only *certain* reality we know of. Unfortunately, science is also seductive to any- one intent on harming humankind, and therein resides the risk and the fear that science may be our undoing, some day. The 911 mass murderers, for example, their at- tack, even though religiously based, was more than willing to use science for evil ends, with their study of how to use massive fuel-laden air- liners as weapons to destroy the World Trade Center. ... - - - June 19, 2007 Should Science Speak to Faith? Two prominent defenders of science exchange their views on how scientists ought to approach religion and its followers By Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins http://tinyurl.com/32oxtg - - - Excerpts [with one insert, not part of originating article, included in brackets]: ... Dawkins: ... let me warn you of how easy it is to be misunderstood. I once wrote in a New York Times book review, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intol- erant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter. But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact. Ignorance is no crime. To call somebody ignorant is no insult. All of us are ignorant of most of what there is to know. I am completely ignorant of base- ball, and I dare say that you are as completely ignor- ant of cricket. If I tell somebody who believes the world is 6,000 years old that he is ignorant, I am paying him the compliment of assuming that he is not stupid, insane or wicked. - - - Krauss: I have to say that I agree completely with you about this. To me, ignorance is often the problem, and, happily, ignorance is most easily addressed. It is not pejorative to suggest that someone is ignorant if they misunderstand scientific issues. - - - Dawkins: In exchange, I am happy to agree with you that I could, and probably should, have put it more tactfully. I should have reached out more seductively. But there are limits. You would stop short of the follow- ing extreme: “Dear Young Earth Creationist, I deeply respect your belief that the world is 6,000 years old. Nevertheless, I humbly and gently suggest that if you were to read a book on geology, or radioisotope dating, or cos- mology, or archaeology, or history, or zoology, you might find it fascinating (along with the Bible of course), and you might begin to see why almost all educated people, including theologians, think the world’s age is measured in billions of years, not thousands.” Let me propose an alternative seduction strategy. Instead of pretending to respect dopey opinions, how about a little tough love? Dramatize to the Young Earth Creationist the sheer magnitude of the discrepancy between his beliefs and those of scientists: “6,000 years is not just a little bit different from 4.6 billion years. It is so different that, dear Young Earth Creationist, it is as though you were to claim that the distance from New York to San Francisco is not 3,400 miles but 7.8 yards. Of course, I respect your right to disagree with scien- tists, but perhaps it wouldn’t hurt and offend you too much to be told—as a matter of deductive and indis- putable arithmetic—the actual magnitude of the dis- agreement you’ve taken on.” ... - - - Krauss: I am not so confident that I am rid of irrational beliefs, at least irrational beliefs about myself. But if religious faith is a central part of the life experience of many people, the question, it seems to me, is not how we can rid the world of God but to what extent can science at least moderate this belief and cut out the most irrational and harmful aspects of religious funda- mentalism. That is certainly one way science might enrich faith. In my lecture to the Catholic group, for instance, I took guidance from your latest book and described how scientific principles, including the requirement not to be selective in choosing data, dictate that one cannot pick and choose in one’s fundamentalism. If one believes that homosexuality is an abomination because it says so in the Bible, one has to accept the other things that are said in the Bible, including the allowance to kill your children if they are disobedient or validation of the right to sleep with your father if you need to have a child and there are no other men around, and so forth. Moreover, science can directly debunk many such destructive literal interpretations of scripture, includ- ing, for example, the notion that women are simple chattels, which stands counter to what biology tells us about the generic biological roles of females and the intellectual capabilities of women and men in particular. In the same sense that Galileo argued, when he suggested that God would not have given humans brains if “he” did not intend people to use them to study nature, science definitely can thus enrich faith. Still another benefit science has to offer was pre- sented most cogently by Carl Sagan, who, like you and me, was not a person of faith. Nevertheless, in a posthumous compilation of his 1985 Gifford Lec- tures in Scotland on science and religion, he makes the point that standard religious wonder is in fact too myopic, too limited. A single world is too puny for a real God. The vast scope of our universe, revealed to us by science, is far grander. Moreover, one might now add, in light of the current vogue in theoretical physics, that a single universe may be too puny and that one might want to start thinking in terms of a host of universes. I hasten to add, however, that enriching faith is far different than providing supporting evidence for faith, which is something that I believe science certainly does not do. - - - Dawkins: Yes, I love that sentiment of Sagan’s, and I’m so glad you picked it out. I summed it up for the publishers of those lectures on the book jacket: “Was Carl Sagan a religious man? He was so much more. He left behind the petty, parochial, medieval world of the conventionally religious; left the theolo- gians, priests and mullahs wallowing in their small- minded spiritual poverty. He left them behind, be- cause he had so much more to be religious about. They have their Bronze Age myths, medieval super- stitions and childish wishful thinking. He had the universe.” I don’t think there is anything I can add in answering your question about whether science can enrich faith. It can, in the sense you and Sagan mean. But I’d hate to be misunderstood as endorsing faith. - - - Krauss: I want to close with an issue that I think is central to much of the current debate going on among scientists regarding religion: Is religion inherently bad? I confess here that my own views have evolved over the years, although you might argue that I have simply gone soft. There is certainly ample evidence that religion has been responsible for many atrocities, and I have often said, as have you, that no one would fly planes into tall buildings on purpose if it were not for a belief that God was on their side. - - - [Insert -- Technically, their belief was in Allah, the Mus- lim God, not the Christian God, -and- back in WWII, the Japanese were willing to suicide their planes into U.S. warships on purpose, not for the Christian God, but instead, for Emperor (considered a God) / country (not sure whether any pleasant afterlife promises were part of that cause, but if so, I wouldn't be surprised). -- end insert] - - - As a scientist, I feel that my role is to object when reli- gious belief causes people to teach lies about the world. In this regard, I would argue that one should respect religious sensibilities no more or less than any other metaphysical inclinations, but in particular they should not be respected when they are wrong. By wrong, I mean beliefs that are manifestly in dis- agreement with empirical evidence. The earth is not 6,000 years old. The sun did not stand still in the sky. ... What we need to try to eradicate is not religious belief, or faith, it is ignorance. Only when faith is threatened by knowledge does it become the enemy. ... - - - end excerpts - - -
|
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
