New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 14, 2006

Liberal clergy and scientists alike urge a kind of cultural Yalta Agreement that would leave faith and science each ascendant in their own sphere. But Ronald Bailey has his doubts about the prospects for a lasting truce.

Comments

|2.14.06 @ 12:33PM|#

"Religious truth..."

Is that anything like "jumbo shrimp" or "military intelligence?"

|2.14.06 @ 12:37PM|#

The opposite of science isn't religion, it's wishful thinking

|2.14.06 @ 12:45PM|#

Ron Bailey seems to imply that science will one day be able to explain everything. That takes a lot of faith. :-)

I posted this open letter on the grylliade forum. I think it's interesting that a not-insignificant number of clergy are going out of their way not to oppose scientific/evolutionary education. I wonder if that will make anyone admit that religion does not automatically equate to anti-intellectualism.

kgsam|2.14.06 @ 12:45PM|#

"Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts."

Religion has two choices: Admit to being a philosophy, or undergo a transformation from mysticism into a more naturalistic explainer of existence. God will then stop being an evolved version of Zeus.

Warren|2.14.06 @ 12:55PM|#

kqsam,
Religion seems to be sticking with "it's true because we say it's true".

It doesn't seem to matter how devastating science is to religion so long as there are throngs of people willing to substitute faith for reason. I see no sign of there ever being a shortage of such people.

Jeff P.|2.14.06 @ 12:55PM|#

Nice George Felis piece on faith being a moral failing:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=166

kgsam|2.14.06 @ 12:57PM|#

"Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts."

Religion has two choices: Admit to being a philosophy, or undergo a transformation from mysticism into a more naturalistic explainer of existence. God will then stop being an evolved version of Zeus.

|2.14.06 @ 12:59PM|#

I have no doubts about the ability of religion to "transform hearts." Religion motivates the charitable works of the Salvation Army; it helped President George W. Bush to stop drinking; and it inspired 19 Muslims to slam airliners into buildings.

I don't know if it was intentional, but the above quote is a perfect example of the "rule of three" in joke-making, the third item being the punchline. It's a tried and true formula found in every successful standup act and mediocre sitcom. I laughed out loud. Kudos!

|2.14.06 @ 12:59PM|#

Replace "religion" with "belief in Santa Claus" and replace "faith" with "self aggrandizing delusions."

FWIW, Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" was a pretty dishonest piece of propaganda.

I wonder if that will make anyone admit that religion does not automatically equate to anti-intellectualism.

Anti-intellectualism or hypocrisy. Great choice.

|2.14.06 @ 1:03PM|#

"Is that anything like "jumbo shrimp" or "military intelligence?""

Or political science, rap music, or government worker.

|2.14.06 @ 1:07PM|#

FWIW, Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" was a pretty dishonest piece of propaganda.

Could you provide some more info on that? (Seriously interested.)

|2.14.06 @ 1:12PM|#

If the implication is that religion can't make specific material claims, I'm fine with that. If the implication is that the inductive part of the scientific method has to be trashed to create parity for mystical explanations for anything outside of our laboratory, well, I doubt anyone will put up with that.

I can't imagine a world where we discover that moving fluids create unequal pressures over a fixed wing, build an airplane, then act like we forgot everything we learned when we try to build a helocopter. When moving on to a different laboratory, it would be lunatic to put summoning demons to carry your chopper around on equal footing with building a rotary wing.

|2.14.06 @ 1:18PM|#

RELIGION IS FOR IDIOTS! WE SMARTER! YAY!

|2.14.06 @ 1:21PM|#

Anti-intellectualism or hypocrisy.

There's a lot of hypocrisy in people who claim to have no faith. They may not have faith in Allah or the flying spaghetti monster, but they sure as hell have faith in other things. Of course, it always seems to be the case with faith that it is viewed internally as objective truth, and people who can't see that truth are evil/stupid/hypocrites/in need of help/cursed/misled, etc.

|2.14.06 @ 1:24PM|#

I don't have a copy of Mismeasure of Man in front of me, so I could be misremembering which book he stated it in, but somewhere, Gould states that there simply hasn't been enough time for brains to evolve differently in the perceived races.

I'm not saying that brains have evolved differently, but if there's enough time for skin colors to have evolved there's enough time for evolution of different amounts of neurotransmitters. Brain chemistry is pretty sensitive to a bunch of the chemicals that our bodies create. Just creating a little more of this or a little less of that could have profound affects on intelligence.

It's quite possible that no such changes have evolved, but clearly enough time has elapsed that they could have.

In that statement, Gould was blowing smoke and he had to either know it or his ideological blinders were so large that he couldn't do a thought experiment whose only prerequisites are a tiny knowledge of brain chemistry.

|2.14.06 @ 1:36PM|#

liguist,

You appear to be playing word games. There are many different definitions for faith. I doubt there's anyone out there who claims not to have faith by any of its definitions. I don't think dictionary.com's definition of faith is the be-all end-all, but it's sufficient to illustrate my point. Contrast:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

with

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

It's easy to have 1 without having 4. There are a lot of things that I have a confident belief in the truth of that I'll never personally verify. An atheist who hasn't visited antarctica but has faith that it exists is not apriori a hypocrite.

|2.14.06 @ 1:46PM|#

"I wonder if that will make anyone admit that religion does not automatically equate to anti-intellectualism."

That's easy to admit. Thomas Aquinas, Kierkegard, the Pope & any number of religious folk are obviously intellectuals -I don't think anyone ever said they were not. But many religious types are given to making "faith-based" arguments (how they would not ?) which, when challenged, often turns into anti-intellectualism.

|2.14.06 @ 1:50PM|#

Hey "anon2"

Is what you're saying above that... Gould fails to claim that N*ggers are measurably stupider than the white man, and therefore you reject his approach?

I wouldnt be surprised. I'm just saying, it's not clear what your bone of contention is.

Also - Fuck religion! Whooo hooo!

JG

|2.14.06 @ 1:55PM|#

"There's a lot of hypocrisy in people who claim to have no faith. They may not have faith in Allah or the flying spaghetti monster, but they sure as hell have faith in other things."

Which is why everyone on the planet should read David Hume. We can't avoid the faith spawned by constant conjunction, but to say that "Oh, well faith is faith" is to miss the point that we should seek to minimize our untested assumptions. We need to avoid using the evolved necessity for certain assumptions as an excuse to multiply the error of faith.

Further, the faith one may have in a higher power is fundamentally different than the faith one has that an apple will fall when released from a height.

|2.14.06 @ 2:30PM|#

anon2,

Most people here have already heard my views on the subject so I won't elaborate a lot more, but I will clarify that by faith I mean "belief in something not provable" (in most cases, not testable).

|2.14.06 @ 2:39PM|#

I have a cunning plan: divvy everything up. The metaphysicians can have everything up to the moment of the Big Bang; scientists get the Big Bang and everything afterwards. Also, scientists are not allowed to talk about God, unless they get a message in pi or something. No God playing with dice, no knowing the mind of God, no nothing.

Similarly, religionists must avoid even opinions on science except on moral grounds (e.g., manufacturing a race of death robots may be wrong). To the extent that weird things happen that science is completely lost on, religionists are allowed to smirk and nod knowingly.

|2.14.06 @ 2:55PM|#

Im a little confused about Ron�s piece =

He starts with outlining S.J. Gould�s position, which is that science and religion are, to put it simply, �apples and oranges�.

��if religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions properly under the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution��

To which I say, �fair enough�.

But then in a quick few paragraphs, Bailey seems to throw out a lot of stuff that seems to try to undermine this idea.

��However, in a certain sense "values" are "facts" about human beings and as such can be studied by scientists. Today researchers into evolutionary psychology, neuroeconomics, genetics and other fields are elucidating the sources of human morality and how it functions. Dean Hamer, a biologist at the National Cancer Institute claims to have found "The God Gene," which affects how certain mood regulating chemicals are transported in people's brains. This variant of the VMAT2 gene seems to make people who have it more susceptible to spiritual beliefs�

But, call me thick, isn�t Ron�s case here ultimately supporting Gould�s point, not undermining it? I mean, simply *identifying* a gene, and saying, �voila � there�s your God!� - isnt that Gould's point? That despite all this empirical information, that it doesnt answer any of the basic moral questions dealt with by religion?

After throwing out some caveats (�theology is still a long way from being reduced to biochemistry.� �.Well, duh...) �.he still manages to muster some conclusion from his scattershot commentary.

�Nevertheless, the magisteria of science is surrounding and shrinking the domain of the magisteria of religion�

Now, I read the piece 3 times � where does he come close to even making the clear point that these �Magesteria� really do share the same space at all?

Gould�s premise is that these things operate in different dimensions; but somehow, Bailey has proved this not to be the case? Where�d I miss that refutation exactly?

And then � not only are they indeed �*competing* magesteria�, sharing some theoretical limited space of intellectual inquiry � but science is WINNING this theoretical competition?

Ok, then if that�s the case, then explain why is it that in the last ~100 years, as technology and science have advanced significantly, the US has become no less religious; in fact, arguably MORE religious than it used to be.

Brooks has more to say on this http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/brooks

|2.14.06 @ 2:55PM|#

No, Gilmore, the message is that white people are stupider than yellow people.

|2.14.06 @ 2:55PM|#

linguist,

Not trying to be snide, but do you mean "not provable", "not proved" or "not falsifiable?"

Better yet, can you give an example of someone with the particular hypocrisy you're talking about? I don't doubt that there are a lot of hypocrites, and I'm willing to believe that you're not deliberately playing word games, but I've reread your original post as well as what you wrote at 2:30 and although I suspect I disagree with you, I may still be misunderstanding what you believe.

|2.14.06 @ 3:02PM|#

One could argue that the US has become "more religious" not because science is failing to answer moral questions but because there are a lot of people afraid of what they don't understand, or afraid of losing their way of life.

|2.14.06 @ 3:30PM|#

Pro Libertate =

Funny :)

I imagined a giant nanny-superbeing grabbing two brats (with bibs saying 'science' and 'religion') by the ears and saying, "now you two play nice, and learn to SHARE!"

There is more than a hint of

|2.14.06 @ 3:41PM|#

Comment by: Lowdog

""One could argue that the US has become "more religious" not because science is failing to answer moral questions but because there are a lot of people afraid of what they don't understand, or afraid of losing their way of life.""


One could! :)
Would one be right?

I mean, what exactly is more frightening now than it was during WWI, or what 'way of life' was less threatened then...?

But even that question is accepting your assumptions = that religion is mostly a product of fear, ignorance... which I think is the right starting point in any case.

Keep in mind, i was asking what Bailey's rationale for 'science is encroaching on religion' is based on, given no apparent evidence to support it.

Also, i dont fully buy his refutation of Gould - or that he necessarily even attempted one. If anyone here cares to put on the R.Bailey hat and try and help out, i'm all ears.

JG

|2.14.06 @ 3:53PM|#

"Keep in mind, i was asking what Bailey's rationale for 'science is encroaching on religion' is based on, given no apparent evidence to support it."

No evidence given to support it ? How about the inconvenient fact that Science has expanded into every area that Religion used to claim as its own (cosmology, astronomy, philosophy (analytical), physics, etc, etc, etc) whereas Religion is now confined to ethics and spiritualism ?
Also, the number of adherants to a theory says nothing about its accuracy.

|2.14.06 @ 3:55PM|#

anon2 and anyone else who wants to take me to task,

I'm afraid I don't have the energy for it today. I can refer you to this thread, where I said pretty much all I have to say on the subject. You'll notice it's 355 posts long. That's why I don't have the energy today. :-)

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/01/religion_explai.shtml#comments

|2.14.06 @ 4:20PM|#

"But even that question is accepting your assumptions = that religion is mostly a product of fear, ignorance... which I think is the right starting point in any case."

Huh? I thought you were mad at us atheist libertarians for starting with the assumption that religion is dumb.

|2.14.06 @ 4:58PM|#

Have we even established that the U.S. is becoming "more religious"? ID is really just a new spin on creationism, as most of us agree, and it was actually shot down relatively quick in the scheme of things (in Dover at least). And the fact that Bush was re-elected in and of itself is not really sufficient to prove a groundswell of religion in the States.

|2.14.06 @ 4:59PM|#

ME = "But even that question is accepting your assumptions = that religion is mostly a product of fear, ignorance... which I think is the right starting point in any case."

o-Dog "Huh? I thought you were mad at us atheist libertarians for starting with the assumption that religion is dumb."

Sorry - you got me, i missed a DONT THINK IS THE RIGHT STARTING PLACE.

And FYI, i'm an athiest libertarian, i just dont see the point in engaging in uninformed mock fests, like we were the Klan reinforcing our superiority over the 'cullerds'. It's really what it sounds like at times.

And, ok, if religion is dumb, whats dumber is that it managed to rule the world for most of history. :) Tough for us.

And re: SM guy...

All the stuff you say Science is 'encroaching' on is about 300 years old. (physics?) Bailey was suggesting a more modern conflict.

JG

|2.14.06 @ 5:16PM|#

And, ok, if religion is dumb, whats dumber is that it managed to rule the world for most of history. :) Tough for us.

Tell me about it.

|2.14.06 @ 5:20PM|#

Christianity in the U.S. being what it is, "liberal clergy" making an agreement with scientists is about as effective as making an agreement with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar that bin Laden will surrender at once. Fundamentalist christians are the instigators of anti-science. They consider liberal clergy as traitors anyway.

After much trial and error, my attitude is... accept the data or don't accept it. I don't care You have to be fairly intelligent to understand the science involved in biology. And it isn't binary, which confuses some people.

There's enough data available to conclude that evolution did happen. The details aren't always clear, and sometime scientists take speculative liberties based on the data. But the underlying science is sound.

I can understand the viewpoint of a fundie. It's much more comfortable to believe you are a special being, instead of the result of random mutations. It's not my job to force them out of their beliefs, and for all the few bad apples that make headlines, they generally aren't violent. So leave them to their fate.

|2.14.06 @ 5:21PM|#

linguist,

I read the previous thread at the time it was written. I even posted a few words to that thread myself. I've gone back and reread all your comments and I'm still unable to determine what you mean by your first post in this thread, unless you're conflating various definitions of faith. You claim that you're not, so I give you the benefit of the doubt, but that leaves me not knowing what you mean.

I agree that humans are hardwired for some things we call morality (e.g. not killing infants), although we're also hardwired for some things that some call immorality (promiscuity), too. In addition to the hardwiring, there are social pressures. I absolutely believe that religion has been a net win for the successful "tribes" which have been religious and thrived. I'm a descendant from a line of believers, so right there I claim I've benefited.

I don't think I'm hard on the theists, although the fact that I don't believe in their Gods might appear that way. After all, if you believe in judgment and eternal life thereafter (either in bliss or in agony), then how you behave with respect to God should logically be the very most important thing in your life. I disbelieve that which is the most important thing in someone's life, so sure, that may make me appear to be hard on theists.

However, it's clear that believers compartmentalize. I don't view people who believe in God as nuts, nor do I think that their belief precludes them from being intellectuals or scientists. Maybe I'm not one of your hypocrites, but I can't tell from what you've posted.

If it appears I'm trying to take you to task, then I've done a bad job at communicating. My first post was taking you to task. In response, you specifically stated that my initial objection was incorrect and that you weren't playing word games. I believe you, but I'm skeptical that people are being hypocritical the specific way you appear to be claiming they are.

I'm genuinely curious as to your point of view, even though I may disagree with it. Religion comes up in threads all the time. If you want to elaborate sometime later, I'll read what you have to say.

|2.14.06 @ 5:22PM|#

It's okay. Religion and science will unite in the future, when our mutant descendants worship a cobalt bomb.

|2.14.06 @ 5:39PM|#

Server alive...?

jp -
Could you provide some more info on that? (Seriously interested.)

A fairly detailed criticism is here:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_gould_paid.html

or search ("Gould" "Mismeasure", etc) at
http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/

|2.14.06 @ 5:52PM|#

I'm genuinely curious as to your point of view, even though I may disagree with it.

OK anon2, to be honest with you I think you're trying to read too much into my original post. But you've been more than fair so I'll see if I can dissect my own argument here. You latched onto one piece of evidence (more an aside, really) in the argument I made, when I was really hoping the focus would be on the other. So I'll just withdraw the whole aside, because I meant it to refer to my arguments from days ago and that wasn't clear. (I meant to show that a system of beliefs is inborn, regardless of morality, and that therefore everyone has one. Because everyone has one, it's not productive to insist that yours is correct, especially now when each individual is free to choose their own intricate mix.)

So here was my real point: there's so much criticism on this board about "religious idiots" that I take personal offense, when I think about professors, friends and family I have who are believers and are not dumb nor ignorant of science. But rather than express that feeling by whining about it and demanding that everyone live up to my standards of decency, I latched onto a rare piece of actual evidence that not all Christians are idiots, and presented it to counter those who insist on spouting insults.

That's all it was.

|2.14.06 @ 7:26PM|#

linguist,

Thanks.

|2.14.06 @ 7:26PM|#

linguist,

Thanks.

|2.14.06 @ 7:43PM|#

There's another word for "truth" whose "purpose is not to convey scientific information"...it's called "bullshit".

|2.14.06 @ 11:33PM|#

" I wonder if that will make anyone admit that religion does not automatically equate to anti-intellectualism."

Not here, not on this board.

|2.14.06 @ 11:57PM|#

Have we even established that the U.S. is becoming "more religious"?

But why does it matter? The vast majority believes in God. We atheists are the minority, and if history is any indication, we always will be.

Religion and science will never see permanent peace because they are inherently at odds in a subtle kind of way. Religion seeks to make people accountable to something beyond and outside of the here and now, while science (implicitly) drives people to be accountable to the here and now, because the here and now is what it is.

My family tried to raise me to be a good Protestant (but you know, some guns back fire). They concede that I hold myself to a more stringent code of ethics than many Christians do. This has always baffled them.

How can you not believe in God and yet seriously hold yourself to a code of ethics? Most believers commence psychologically self disintegration at the thought of there being nothing beyond the universe that exists.

This may be the crux of the reason that most people will believe in God, for ever and ever amen. Because science keeps raising new questions that demand answers, abortion, cloning, and a-bombs are just some of the more obvious cases.

Science will always make people say "oh great, now what?"

---------------------------

The Greek ideal of the perfect ruler was a centaur. Half man, half animal, because people are as likely to be animals as not.

There is good reason to fear the evil that human beings are capable of. If God is what it takes to give people some sense of security against this threat, I can understand it.

I don't agree (i.e. am still an atheist), but I can understand why the believers believe.

dhex|2.15.06 @ 5:03AM|#

"There's another word for "truth" whose "purpose is not to convey scientific information"...it's called "bullshit"."

what about the poetic? or the ineffable?

what is the weight of love? the half-life of beauty?

etc etc and so forth.

|2.15.06 @ 1:59PM|#

" I wonder if that will make anyone admit that religion does not automatically equate to anti-intellectualism."

Not here, not on this board.

Except where previously admitted on this board.

|2.15.06 @ 3:02PM|#

in the scientific community, Gould is considered wildly overrated.

kgsam|2.15.06 @ 4:10PM|#

The thing about fundamentalists is that their so-called "literal interpretation" is still just an interpretation of a translation of someone interpretation of someone else's interpretaton of an experience they had.
Assitionally, the fundamentalist interpretation might be more properly labeled a primitive interpretation or even a paganist interpretation.

|2.15.06 @ 5:12PM|#

There are lots of things about fundamentalists.

kgsam|2.15.06 @ 5:12PM|#

excuse me: someone's interpretation
and
Additionally