Practicing Science -- With or Without Religion?

America is one of the few places in the world with an ongoing public debate about the interface (conflict?) between science and religion. One of the problems with this debate is that debaters too often cook up questions and issues that serve their views without contributing to any enlightenment.

For example, there's the confusion between deism and religion. We might all be better served if the two terms were kept separated. They are not equivalent. The term "deism" should be used to refer to a belief in God (or Gods) and "religion" to refer to a social group with a particular doctrine about God (or Gods). The difference is critical, because many people are essentially deists without belonging to any particular religion. It's maybe unfortunate that too many people ask if science is compatible with religion when what they really mean is the question whether science is compatible with a belief in God (or Gods).

The problem for the working scientist is that the essence of science is a self-conscious and mandatory objectivity -- which means dogma and doctrine are essentially antithetical to science, not so much on philosophical grounds but on actual procedural grounds. In plain words, science requires objectivity and dogma is by definition an absolute enemy of objectivity -- and therefore an enemy of science.

In this context, the main source of dogma as an enemy of science is not deism, it's religion. A mere belief in the existence of God (or Gods) without any dogma about the natural world deriving from that belief is no practical enemy of science. In contrast, a strong dogma (doctrine) about the natural world derived from religion is nearly always antithetical to the practice of science.

We need to say "nearly always" because it depends on which science is in practice. Most religious dogma says very little directly about physics or chemistry. A particle physicist or a quantum theorist or an organic chemist who is a member of a religion usually has no religious dogma that constitutes an enemy of objectivity. The same is true of the engineering sciences. In contrast, a biologist, a psychologist, a social scientist, a medical scientist, are all very much aware of the conflict between religious dogma and the practice of their science. In general, the further removed a particular science is from human affairs, the less relevant to practice is any religious dogma.

A particle physicist does not need to make moral and religious value judgments about protons and gluons. In contrast, a psychiatrist in practice may have a difficult time separating his religious beliefs from his dealings with his patients.

So the question whether "science" is compatible with religion is a bad construction because in the context of the question the term "science" is ambiguous. Nevertheless, if we say adherence to any dogma is incompatible with any science (which is my own view), then the question is answered. My own view is that there is no room for any dogma in science -- no room at all.

In general, most scientists are professed atheists -- no belief in God (or Gods), although I'm not certain how the surveys handle the difference between deism and religion. About 90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are apparently atheists. Richard Dawkins is a celebrated public scientist-atheist. Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers of America, was a celebrated revolutionary-deist. In contrast, Francis Collins, our new chief at the National Institutes of Health, is a practicing Catholic, and there are many thousands of scientists in America and elsewhere who label themselves as members of some religion.

What's usually missing in discussions about these questions are calm voices. The other day I received in the mail a book on the subject written in a calm voice. Fred Grinnell is an accomplished cell biologist who gives us a very readable little book: Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic. The first half of the book is about the daily practice of science, and the second half is about the interface between science and society, in particular the interface (conflict?) between science and religion. It's an intelligent and very readable book in a calm voice, and it certainly should be read by anyone interested in the ongoing (and raging) dispute about the compatibility of science and religion. Fred Grinnell is completely opposed to both Creationism and Intelligent Design, but he argues that science and religion are indeed compatible -- room for both. That's a viewpoint, and although I disagree with that viewpoint, his book is a smart book with a decent argument that deserves attention.

Frederick Grinnell: Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic. Oxford University Press, 2009.

 

 

Follow Dan Agin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danaginzz

Comments

[mamacat]

Another quick comment from me: looking at these comments, and thinking about a blog elsewhere on Huffpo about thinking about things before making a decision, it strikes me that these comments reflect a lot of thought, and that they require some thought after reading them. If that makes any sense.

[royniles]

If you are open minded abut deism, that's one thing, but if you are a deist, then you believe the universe or cosmos had a creator. One can then be a deist for more than one personal reason, but nevertheless there will be a reason, conscious or not, behind any conception of deism that is more than speculation. And that reason, necessarily a philosophical rather than scientific conception, will be to some extent dogmatic, and to that same extent be less than objective. Getting you back in the same big boat with the religionists, even if not in the steerage section.

[Dan Agin - Huffpost Blogger]

Well said. Yes, I agree with this.

[RMankovitz]

As a research scientist, I have a deep reverence for that which has caused everything in our universe (and probably others) to evolve and exist. Our pathetic level of comprehension is only able to grasp "that which" by applying anthropomorphic traits to "it." We generally call it (her) nature. I have written many publications extolling her virtues in fields as diverse as rocket science and health.

Since everyone debating the topic of religion and science seems free to assign their unique definitions to words and concepts, I will do the same.

Reverence: to honor and admire profoundly and respectfully.

Nature: that which has caused everything in our universe (and probably others) to exist and evolve.

Science: an attempt to understand, and possibly manipulate, nature.

I have no real interest in entities where (mostly white) men, driven by arrogance and ignorance, created some fiction in their own image that presumes we are somehow special in the grander scheme of things. I believe nature has a very different view of our place among living things, and it is certainly not at the top.

The beauty of revering nature is that she provides the same guidance to all living things, and we don't need self-appointed paid intermediaries. We do not have to suspend reality or have an unrealistic belief system. We just have to look out the window at the plants, animals, and soil, and there she is in all her beauty.

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com

[Norge]

I enjoyed reading both yours and Dans' slant on this topic and your chosen 3 words of focus were excellent.

The vastness, and enormity of the cosmos deserves nothing less than reverence. And the multverse possibilities fills the unknowns and answers the larger number of my own personal questions. I studied black holes during the 70's when they were just a humor topic of sceptics.

It seems to be simply foolish of any to deny with their absolutes the non-existance of what ever
they may find unexceptable to their own views.
As children unaware of the neighbors' house, growth through time changes their views if they have not become blinded during their travel.




As children unaware of the neighbors' house, growth through time changes childrens' views.

[mamacat]

Good point. A belief in God does not have to dictate allegiance to a religious organisation, whether it be the Vatican, the Salt Lake City based religion, or any other organisation which seeks obedience.

[Deist]

Thanks for an interesting article. And thanks for mentioning Deism. I've been a Deist since 1984 and I'm disappointed in how few people even know what Deism is. Especially in America where many of its key founders were Deists and in Europe where Deism originated.

I'd like to point out one error in your article. Thomas Paine was NOT an Atheist, he was a Deist. He wrote The Age of Reason which objectively examines Christianity, Judaism, the Bible, Nature and Deism. He wrote it in France during the French Revolution in an effort to counter the rise of Atheism. He believed the nonsense taught by Christianity and the Bible coupled with the abuse the people suffered at the hands of the clergy was pushing them towards Atheism. He held Deism up as an alternative to both "revealed" religion and to Atheism. Also, he was not a politician, he was a revolutionary Deist. He never held any political office.

Progress! Bob Johnson
www.deism.com

[Dan Agin - Huffpost Blogger]

Much thanks. Good point re Thomas Paine. I have corrected the text. Dan.

[FaceReality2]

Interesting website.

How many members do you have? Are there congregations of Deists around the country (I didn't see a listing)?

[PlaceboStudman]

Part 2

In other words, morality exists, completely independant of the existance of external forces ("God"). Murder is wrong, not because God said so, but because we feel an internal conflict of pain and anguish at the idea of murder, as a part of our conscience, and our conscience is little more than the collective response of our mind and our body to negative events. But, we can't face these responses, and aknowledge them as part of our human nature, so we say "God made us feel this way, therefore God says its wrong, therefore it is wrong"

But this is not a universal concept, as there are societies and civilizations where murder is acceptable, and instead of saying they have a different conscience, we say they have a different God as arbiter of their morality

[Romulus]

Very well written. Fanned.

[PlaceboStudman]

The question isn't one of the conflict between science and religion. The conflict is between science and morality. Religion is merely the dogma that defines a given set of moral beliefs. Most people (and yes, this is something of a generality, I admit) who identify themself as religious are people who not only believe in a deity, but also believe in the role of that diety as arbitor of morality. In essence, I believe that people who object to science and medicine on religious grounds do so from an anti-intellectual posiiton, where they can not or will not aknowledge that we are the arbiter or our own morality, and when faced with a question that challenges one's morality, instead of aknowledging that morality is unique to the individual, and that it is our job to wrestle with these questions, they summarily reject the question, out of their own fear of facing their own morality, so they place that rejection onto "God"

[DownerCow]

Keeping the two disciplines apart is easy when it comes to specific technical research, more difficult when postulating on the origins of mankind or the universe, and extremely frustating when it comes to public policy. I could concede that an intelligence behind the big bang is no less a stretch than spontaneous creation of matter, but could not possibly jump from that to coercing my neighbor not to marry his soulmate.