Martin Luther King: Science Advocate

As a young atheist, I was fascinated by religious philosophy that attempted to square the circle that is modern science. And although my personal atheism hasn't softened over the years, I have grown to understand that science and faith aren't mutually exclusive. Which is why, when I first encountered the following quote by Dr. Martin Luther King, I don't think it resonated for me quite the same way it does today:

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."

And although I disagree that without religion, human beings are condemned to an amoral existence, I don't believe that this was the point of Dr. King's words. He didn't say that religion prevents people from moral nihilism, he said that religion prevents science from such a fate. This is an important distinction. Science is the investigation of the natural world, and it often involves a manipulation of nature and development of new technologies. Both efforts have the potential to be beautifully informative, creative, and inspirational. But, unchecked, the potential for destruction and detriment cannot be ignored.

Martin Luther King understood this concept fully, and he cautioned against the frighteningly awesome power that new technologies were bringing to the hands of men, especially in the wake of the Vietnam War:

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."

Science is an interesting paradox, because it is, fundamentally, thought to be devoid of outside influence. Science is the investigation of nature. And as we all know, nature just is. But, science is a verb, an activity. Being so, it is carried out by people. It does not--it cannot--exist in a vacuum. And hard as we may try, human beings are simply incapable of any behavior that carries no bias, no moral or political persuasion.

In the early sixties, Martin Luther King knew that the fearful men in power--the amoral majority--were bending "scientific findings" to suit their political ideologies. He was a champion of skeptical thought, and cautioned the public at large to be wary of such claims:

"So men conveniently twisted the insights of religion, science, and philosophy to give sanction to the doctrine of white supremacy...they will even argue that God was the first segregationist. 'Red birds and blue birds don't fly together,' they contend...they turn to some pseudo-scientific writing and argue that the Negro's brain is smaller than the white man's brain. They do not know, or they refuse to know, that the idea of an inferior or superior race has been refuted by the best evidence of the science of anthropology. Great anthropologists, like Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, and Melville J. Herskovits agree that although there may be inferior and superior individuals within all races, there is no superior or inferior race. And segregationists refuse to acknowledge that there are four types of blood, and these four types are found within every racial group."

He further writes that:

"Slavery in America was perpetuated not merely by human badness but also by human blindness...Men convinced themselves that a system that was so economically profitable must be morally justifiable...Science was commandeered to prove the biological inferiority of the Negro. Even philosophical logic was manipulated [exemplified by] an Aristotelian syllogism: 'All men are made in the image of God. God, as everyone knows, is not a Negro. Therefore, the Negro is not a man.'"

Similar to sentiments communicated by Charlie Chaplin, when he mocked Adolf Hitler in The Great Dictator, Dr. Martin Luther King taught us that the power of humanity lies not only in its scientific capabilities, but in its moral sensibilities:

"Through our scientific and technological genius we've made of this world a neighborhood. And now through our moral and ethical commitment we must make of it a brotherhood. We must all learn to live together as brothers--or we will all perish together as fools. This is the great issue facing us today. No individual can live alone; no nation can live alone. We are tied together."

I believe that Dr. King would be inspired by the ever growing collection of modern scientific studies evidencing our singular human ancestry. We are all children of Africa. In his honor, today, let us celebrate brotherhood, sisterhood--humanhood--and the scientific spirit that allows us to learn about the wonders of the universe as one unified people.

See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts: www.huffingtonpost.com/news/talk-nerdy-to-me
Like Cara Santa Maria on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Cara-Santa-Maria
Follow Cara Santa Maria on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CaraSantaMaria

Comments

[Jonah Berlin]

12:35 AM on 02/27/2012

In this article you write "Science is the investigation of the natural world, and it often involves a manipulation of nature and development of new technologies. Both efforts have the potential to be beautifully informative, creative, and inspirational. But, unchecked, the potential for destruction and detriment cannot be ignored."

I would like to change this to:

"Religion is the ordained belief in preconceived notions of the natural world, and it often involves a manipulation of nature and of new technologies. Both efforts have the potential to be beautifully informative, creative, and inspirational. But, unchecked, the potential for destruction and detriment cannot be ignored."

In other words, religion can cause many of the same problems that science can. Being religious does not instill a person with the ability to guide ethics in science (just look at the ridiculousness surrounding stem cell research and birth control, or some of the kneejerk reactions of the spiritual ecological movement). Scientists, believe it or not, are often driven by a deep desire to make the world a better place. Clergy, believe it or not, are often driven by power and pride.

MLK was writing at a time when black people were being experimented on in unethical and quasi-legal pharmaceutical experiments, but at the same time people were burning crosses on peoples' lawns. What's to say religion is some greater guide which can grant science "values?"

[BillTeam]

03:36 PM on 03/09/2012

Let's grant that it is possible to eliminate religion and suspend for the sake of discussion that there is a god or gods. From where then would science derive its ethics and legality if not from an external source? The majority? Or from the most powerful block of individuals, institutions or nations?

We have already ample evidence of the capacity of academics and scientists to decide that a group of weaker individuals were exploitable for scientific research. On what basis of morality did German scientists under Nazi leadership justify conducting horrific experiments on Jews and mentally ill individuals? It was on the precise basis of "a deep desire to make the world a better place." On what basis did scientists experiment on unsuspecting prison inmates in America and elsewhere? Indeed it was the same. On what basis are scientists now conducting clinical trials in African countries without informed consent that would not be allowed in America or Europe? The same. On what basis are scientists today willing to destroy human embryos? It is the same--in order to develop potentially life improving technologies to cure dread diseases and make the world a better place.

Clearly "a deep desire to make the world a better place" is not a sufficient constraint to prevent a stronger group of leaders and scientists within our society from exploiting a weaker group and even to cause their suffering and deaths. Who decides which group is weak enough to be exploited? Who advocates for them?

[Tony Collins]

08:30 AM on 01/19/2012

based on some of the comments i see, King was right about perishing together as fools. SMH

[lovinlife2]

08:58 PM on 01/18/2012

I'm curious about how his illegitimate daughter is doing. Don't see much, or anything, about her life and feelings. Any info out there in this regard?

[TimTim17]

06:47 AM on 01/21/2013

Probably doing well, but not as well as the perfect human is doing right now...such as yourself.

[lovinlife2]

12:44 PM on 01/21/2013

Thank you for your mildly interesting take on my legitimate posting, Tim, yet it adds nothing to my interest expressed.

[Satirist1]

07:30 PM on 01/18/2012

I don't trust preachers. Especially those who plagiarized much of their college. work.
Do as I say, don't do as I do.

[Satirist1]

07:28 PM on 01/18/2012

It is rather unfortunate to what precipitous lows science education has sank in the AA community.
Mr. King would've been very disappointed.

[AndreasZourdos]

09:05 AM on 01/18/2012

Great preacher indeed but Martin Luther King failed terribly to support his own ideas, you may be aware of his writings concerning the Jews. One cannot make a difference on MLK and Adolf Hitler on the matter. There 's been also a suspicion he plagiarized his thesis. Since you are an atheist you might want to read "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens.
Your blog is great overall, btw, and I will be keeping a close eye.

Andreas

[Cara Santa Maria]

07:37 PM on 01/18/2012

Thanks so much! And yes, God Is Not Great is a very important read. Highly recommend!

[Elpenor Dignam]

02:18 PM on 01/20/2012

I enjoyed your piece until I read your comment above on, the man for all seasons, Hitchens the neocon socialist and feel you have undermined yourself somewhat by failing to understand the connection between science and political power, science's role in empire building, shaping and maintanence. Organised religion has occasionally been used in a similiar manner, but often,much more often than science, in the service of the poor and the opressed as in Gandhi, MLK, Dali Llama, Oscar Romero, etc etc. We need both science and religion in society or is like having an intellect with no heart or a heart with no intellect. Religion never had the capacity to whipe out the entire human species.

[Maggie K]

09:50 PM on 01/22/2012

Adreas, which writings of his are you referring to exactly? I'm not sure if there are others, but there are many letters that people claimed he wrote that were found to be a hoax. While I'm not claiming he is exempt from criticism in any way, I think it is only fair to keep the information factual and not based on speculations. Maybe you are referring to the German Christian reformation leader Martin Luther, who was a know anti-semite?:

http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

[SwiftJonathan]

03:45 PM on 01/17/2012

While I do admire Dr. King very much, I am afraid that he would be utterly disappointed by the state of affairs in this country. Spirituality did not propel white people to higher levels of existence, indeed, one can argue that the recent wave of American spirituality is dumbing the country down. And black people have not been able to make the kind of progress that the social changes of his age were promising.

Instead, an increasing number of people, of all colours and races, are finding themselves caught on a backwards moving economic conveyor belt. No matter how fast they manage to run, few of them seem to be making real progress and many have to fear that they will leave their kids an even worse start position than they got themselves. The fears created by this economic pressure seem to be erasing many of the gains we thought had been made in the relationship between different social groups and we are finding ourselves and our country less tolerant by the minute.

[theveggiedude]

03:38 PM on 01/17/2012

Religion is ill prepared to take us forward. It has outgrown its usefulness and is being outpaced by science.What does religion say of giving the great apes basic human rights, as has been proposed by many scientists? And what does religion say if we make contact with alien civilizations, when we are suppose to be the ones created in gods image?

[eric14]

01:06 PM on 01/18/2012

To you it has outgrown its usefulness. But you are not a premodern traditionalist living the old-time Judaic, Muslim, Hindu or Christian way. And there are a lot of these people. They cannot be ignored. They are very difficult to negotiate with and many of them do not like modern secular people. I mean really do not like them at all. So, being fully equipped with the right opinions does not get us very far. We are, frankly, in a jam.

[abarovingEU]

01:01 PM on 01/17/2012

Loved the article by Cara Santa Maria--very well put and I agree with her and with Martin Luther King-----!!

[jstrate]

11:36 AM on 01/17/2012

Dr. King was alive at a time when it was commonplace to talk about a dichotomy between facts (the domain of science) and values (the domain of ethics and religion). Such a dichotomy doesn't exist. Values are observable phenomena and can be investigated by science. Many sociobiologists (ethologists, primatologists, evolutionary pyschologists) have investgated values. Others have developed lists of traits that comprise a universal human nature, I'd guess that Dr. King would be pleased with this work since it tells us what unites us as a species rather than what divides us.

[Maggie K]

10:09 PM on 01/22/2012

I think that Dr. King often spoke of his concern for the trajectory we were going down as a society (nationally and globally), for example:

"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."

I think ideally, in a balanced society, a dichotomy between these two should not exist, but in Dr. King's case it wasn't so much a motive to illustrate the dichotomy (or in turn the overlap) as it was to illuminate the necessity to have a balance between the two, and need for the human moral/values domain to be the priority.

[mmulkeen]

08:25 AM on 01/17/2012

Of course science and technology alone obviously do do not provide ethical systems or political wisdom, and their by products of things like nuclear weapons or climate change could bring about catastrophic damage to human civilization as we know it. But this does not mean science somehow needs religion. People need ethics and for these ethics to be close to universal, they should not be rooted in a particular culture's appeal to supernatural agents or places.

I think Dr.Laurence Krauss (a scientist and not a theologian like Dr. King) gives a much more bold, lucid and coherent opinion on the science v. religion debate in his WSJ editorial from 2009.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html

[SwiftJonathan]

03:27 PM on 01/17/2012

Science only opens up choices. It does not prescribe which way we go. Nuclear weapons arsenals and anthropogenic global warming are the results of moral choices we make. Science, at best, can elaborate about the consequences those choices can or will have.

Having said that, I think it is fair to say that the world would be a lot better of if we left important choices to people who are actually versed in science, they seem, on average, to have the better moral compass, after all.

[mmulkeen]

08:23 AM on 01/17/2012

While I normally like this reporters work, I find this column full of platitudes and over generalizations. Of course some people can be professional scientists and also be religious. That however does not make religion something that transcends human cultures in a way that science does. And conversely, this does not make any of the supernatural truth claims of religion more reasonable or likely for one who is an atheist or agnostic to any give faith. And essentially all people are either atheist or agnostic to almost all faiths, all faiths but one, or any and all faiths. (Faith meaning here belief in supernatural agents, not confidence in something.)

Two fundamental problems with religion are when in it 1) asserts that its supernatural stories and claims that are literally true and 2) its followers claim their arguments have special status because the are arguing for the divine will of God. Science as well as philosophy can help disabuse people of these notions, and reign in religion to be peaceful, tolerant and democratic.

Let's not forget that when the Christian religions were in charge of Europe or the Byzantine empire, there was no tolerance for dissent in matters of religion or science, and the forms of government were largely dictatorships and not democracies.

[Cara Santa Maria]

07:44 PM on 01/18/2012

Thanks so much for your comments, mmulkeen. I hope you understand that I wasn't attempting to argue that religion is necessary (nor sufficient) to keep scientific progress in check morally. Although I do not fully agree with Dr. King's overall stance about the importance of religion, I did want to point out that he was an advocate of modern science, a little-known fact. I myself am an atheist, and I could write a book about the reasons I do not believe in god and my personal qualms with organized religion, but I don't think that this particular post was the place to do it.

[mmulkeen]

09:25 PM on 01/19/2012

I have yet to hear about any religion being in conflict with say the science behind computer microchips or electricity in general. Is there any theological position on whether copper or gold is the better conductor? Yet any Bible literal fundamentalist, who believes in a 6,000 year old universe and the spontaneous almost instant creation of all life forms into immutable kinds, is in conflict with the science of astrophysics or biology.

So this complex issue of science v. faith cannot be group into the simple categories of yes there is a conflict or no there isn't. Both terms are too broad and relative. What science and what faith are at stake? On religion are we talking about the god who evades all detection at will to test faith or one who really chooses to respond positively to prayer, with more prayer from more people being better?

That being said, I wonder if Dr. King ever expressed any views on say evolution, abortion or gay relationships, and were such views theologically based? Could perhaps make for an interesting column in the future.

Regards,

Matt

[mmulkeen]

09:26 PM on 01/19/2012

Hi Cara, (apologies if I made two posts in the wrong order, this should be part 1)

Thanks for responding. I must confess that had I known you were going to read my post, I likely would have changed the wording. Also, my employer did not give me MLK day as a holiday, so perhaps that made me more surly than usual.

I do like your writing and have recently started following your columns. You are one of the few bloggers I follow on the HP or anywhere else. I also realize that you were writing, perhaps I could say, in the spirit of the holiday, which I think is an important holiday that deserves more respect and consideration than it gets. I agree with your statement about not the proper forum for a book length article, or perhaps for that matter, too many nuances and side topics.

If I could offer a more constructive criticism, maybe it is better to say something like science and religion are not necessarily or always in conflict. But I think it goes too far to say "science and faith aren't mutually exclusive." It depends on what science or faith is at issue. Sometimes they are exclusive, sometimes not. I sometimes cringe at these broad generalizations.

[zenju2]

07:46 AM on 01/17/2012

I've been told by some HuffPo commenters that, as I am not "black," I have nothing to say about Dr. King or what his message means to me, so I shall abstain from this otherwise interesting discussion.

[EdRea]

07:25 AM on 01/17/2012

' In his honor, today, let us celebrate brotherhood, sisterhood--humanhood--and the scientific spirit that allows us to learn about the wonders of the universe as one unified people ' -- and, every day.

[Scott Collier]

05:48 AM on 01/17/2012

I am not an atheist nor a fevored religious evangelisor . What I am is someone who distinguishes bettween science and religion based primarily on two key facets ; religion strives to answer the why/purpose mystery and science approaches events and theory from the how/circumstance defining approach . In science your religious beliefs bear no relevance since they are purely subjective ,therefore neither endorsing or disavowing any faith . In religion objectivity many times obstructs the prescribed path to meaning and a sense of spirituallity . I think one can have a belief in a religious doctrine so long as it is not of the disdainfull dismissiveness directed at science and intelectual pursuits , and science need not be a barrier to searching for a spirit component in our lives so long as you don't fall into the trap of science as religion resulting in total denial and consequently a diminished capacity to appreciate life and culture .

[SwiftJonathan]

03:31 PM on 01/17/2012

The problem with this assertion is that, after 3500 years of searching, monotheism has made almost no inroads answering the "why" question. Modern science, on the other hand, has completely changed the world, to the better, by answering nothing but the "how" questions for the last 400 years.

This seems to indicate to me that asking "how" is far more important and useful than asking "why". I am willing to wait for another 3500 years to see if this will actually change, but I wouldn't bet a dime on it.

[Scott Collier]

05:59 AM on 01/18/2012

You assert monotheism has made almost no inroads . Does this indicate a recognition of validity ? What of multi deistic traditions or the more ancient shamanism based traditions ? While I pose no rebutal that science has improved our standards it must be recognized that it also has been a device for some really terrifying events ; Hiroshima , Chernobyl , Bopal India ... the list is quite substantial .

In fairness there are horrific events in the history of religions ranging from torture to genocide . These are not acceptable prospects for anyone , religious or not .

As for 400 years of the how , are we to disregard Ptolemy , Pythageros , Aristotle or Arabic origins of Algebraic equations , Mayan observations of the stars and their periodic patterns , the mysterious origins of Stonehenge and it's solar / seasonal alignments ..

The why has been the origin for the how more often than most would like to acknowledge . For most of humanity religion is a guide to navigate life . To excercise science as purely outside this reality is naive , everyone has some belief system and the best way to gaurd asgainst abuse is to recognize the importance these traditions play in people's life . In this recognition we can illuminate the superstitions that drive fear and predjudice with reason and conversely bring respect for those who view themselves not as a simple biomechanical construct but rather a sum total greater than the

[lovinlife2]

09:02 PM on 01/18/2012

Do you really think there's a finite end to the "how" questions?? I wouldn't waste a dime on that.