The ideological uses of science very often become tangled up in the debate between science and religion. Theories that for the scientist do practical work in the laboratory to make sense of certain data, and help map out the direction for future research, can be deployed in the world outside for or against various political, social, religious or anti-religious agendas. In the process the science becomes socially transformed, the original meanings of words in scientific discourse conveying quite different connotations.
This trend goes back a long way, as well illustrated by the authors in the recently published Biology and Ideology: From Descartes to Dawkins (Denis R. Alexander and Ronald L. Numbers, eds, Chicago University Press, 2010). The 13 essays in this volume illustrate the many and varied ways in which biology in particular has been utilized for a wide range of political, religious, and social purposes from 1600 to the present day. The purposes may be beneficial, benign, or harmful in their outcomes, but all are "ideological" in the broadest sense of not being intrinsic to biology itself.
With the benefit of hindsight, historians more than others are in a good position to discern such uses and abuses of biological ideas. Whereas the twentieth-century abuses of genetics in eugenics and in racist ideologies are obvious and thoroughly described in the present volume, less obvious are the subtle ways in which the same biological ideas have been used during the same period for quite opposite ideological purposes in different countries, as described by Prof. Shirley Roe and Prof. Peter Hanns Reill. The supposedly "materialistic" biology that in France was utilized by the philosophes to subvert the social order in the eighteenth century was in Britain used as a key resource for natural theology, whereas in Germany it was being used politically as an analogy for the structure of nation-states.
Today the ideological uses of biology continue on as much as they ever did. In his chapter entitled "Creationism, intelligent design, and modern biology," Prof. Ronald Numbers describes how the biological theory of evolution has been invested with ideological overtones, particularly in North America, ever since Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859. For some evolution became a philosophy that threatened to undermine notions of man "made in the image of God." For others, evolution became a political threat to the social order, subverting campaigns to achieve greater rights for the oppressed.
This was particularly the case for the original President Obama who never was, the thrice-defeated Democratic candidate for the presidency of the United States, and campaigner for liberal reform, William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925). Early in 1922, as Numbers recounts, Bryan helped to launch a crusade aimed at driving evolution out of the churches and schools of America. But Bryan's motivation was as much political as religious. He had become alarmed by the way that the philosophy of "might is right" reputedly fueled German militaristic ambitions during the First World War. Benjamin Kidd's Science of Power (1918), a book that influenced Bryan, purported to demonstrate the historical and philosophical links between Darwinism and German militarism.
It was Bryan's campaign that helped launch the creationist movement of the early 1920s, leading in turn to the infamous Scopes Trial of 1925. The movement benefited from another leading campaigner of the same era, the Canadian Adventist George McCready Price, who agreed with Bryan that the First World War, during which Germany put "the ruthless ethics of Darwinism ... into actual practice," provided ample evidence of the threat evolution posed to human freedom.
What Numbers brings out so clearly in his chapter is the way in which the theory of evolution was socially transformed into a bogey-man for virtually anyone who had an axe to grind. Rather than simply explaining the origins of biological diversity, it became an icon of materialism, or militarism, or atheism, or socialism, or capitalism. In fact evolution has been deployed since 1859 in support of almost every "ism" that exists, many of them mutually exclusive. All kinds of ideological barnacles became attached to the theory to the extent that the actual biology was obscured in the process.
Ironically, as Prof. Alister McGrath makes clear in his chapter entitled "Evolutionary biology in recent atheist apologetics," the presentation of evolution by the "new atheists" is in fact very similar to that of the creationists and more recent proponents of Intelligent Design. Opposite poles are often more similar to each other than either side might be prepared to admit.
In the hands of Prof. Richard Dawkins, evolution becomes an ultra-Darwinian philosophy in rivalry with the idea of creation. Dawkins argues that there are at present only three possible ways of seeing the world: Darwinism, Lamarckism, or God. The last two fail to explain the world adequately; the only option is therefore Darwinism. In such claims, McGrath notes, evolution becomes exalted to a metanarrative, infused with the ideological rhetoric of atheism.
The ideological uses and abuses of science are bad for science education, because so often the science gets lost in the rhetoric. They are also bad for religion, because scientific theories are always provisional, open to refutation, and simply not up to the herculean task of refereeing between pro- or anti-religious arguments. Darwinian evolution, for example, just happens to be the inference to the best explanation for the origins of all the biological diversity on planet earth. It's a stunningly successful theory, but it's best just to let scientific theories do the job that they're good at, and not invest them with ideologies that have nothing to do with the science.
Politicized science gave us Nazi eugenics, it's true. But politicized religion has brought us things like anti-Jewish pogroms, racial and gender discrimination, and criminalized homosexuality. All were based in interpretations of theological issues, which became popular in the culture then gained force of law. And because religion, too, is "provisional" and "open to refutation", these policies are now considered an injustice by most people.
Sp what's the point? People will use their best understandings to build their ideologies. I think it's far better for science to be the basis of those understandings -- even with the risks the author highlights -- than for religion to be that foundation. It's certainly no worse.
My point is, where do ideologies come from?
Consider two ideologies: capitalism and socialism. How does someone decide which ideology to support? The ugly truth is, most people probably don't think much about it, they just go with their gut. But I think we'd agree the better way to decide is to choose by some rational process of costs versus benefits.
If we base ideology on religion, someone might conclude that the command to "Love thy neighbor" demands a socialist system. Or that the Parable of the Talents demands that those who produce wealth be rewarded, so that capitalism is divinely mandated.
Is that really better than using what we know of science -- human behavior, economics, probabilities -- to decide which ideology is more likely to produce the greatest benefit? Even if we misinterpret science in the process, we can't do any worse than the religious approach.
While it is true that science can neither prove nor disprove faith, it is not true that the question is irrelevant. Furthermore, since science is the pursuit of truth, if God exists, there can be no true conflict between God and science; the strictly human construct of religion is a different question.
That said, the point that politicizing either science or religion will inevitable lead to problems is real and valid.
For the record, I am a thoroughly Deistic scientist. I do not, however, believe in a simplistic God that human minds can fully grasp. I take, on faith, that God knows and cares about me; beyond that, I try to live a life that Jesus would approve--kindness, respect for others, Golden Rule--and use science to understand the world as well as I can.
Still, I think the human brain is more plastic than you give it credit for despite it's evolutionary limitations. Also, remember, decisions are made by a kind of voting process in the brain... no, not all neurons have an equal vote.
Ever since 'super-bug' diseases with evolved resistance to new antibiotics showed up everyone has watched this theory operate before their eyes. There is no further debate over the reality of evolution.
As for the reality of a god? So far, no religion has came up with a self-consistent version of deity, and no proposed deity is remotely consistent with our observations of the universe. The nebulous term "god" may someday be linked to something real, but that will have nothing at all to do with the vindictive sky daddy that mass religions pretend to worship.
Not so fast...
"Erwin Schrodinger, discoverer of wave mechanics was deeply influenced by the philosophical wisdom of the East. Schrodinger read widely and thought deeply the teachings of Hindu scriptures. He was particularly fascinated by Vedanta and Upanishads and developed a kinship with Budha and his techniques. Schrodinger also wrote about "The Basic view of Vedanta" by expounding Sankara's version of advaitha and non-dualism."
http://www.photonics.cusat.edu/article2.html
"Quantum physicists' interest in the Hindu Vedanta: science and soul consciousness."
http://www.wechange.org/science_spirituality/wigner_scientists_interest_in_hindu_vedenta_proof_soul
http://www.wechange.org/science_spirituality/sub_atomic_chaos_free_will_random_thoughts
The idea of an observer being necessary for wave collapse is interesting, but meaningless in terms of religion or the origins of life. Most of the "observers" used in experiments are simply machines, non living and only producing a permanent record of single events.
Yahweh Jesus, Allah, Krishna and other deity proposals (despite being worshiped by many) are simply incompatible with this sort of direction that some wish to use in physics to discover a god.
Mostly they stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalalala" to win the argument by default. :)
Right. Because we are less "enlightened," we do not see such Bible passages as "figurative" or "ironical," but merely "mistaken."
And before you ask, "laws" are not better than "theories." Laws are simply empirical observations for which you understanding of the mechanism has been elucidated. The Law of Gravity, was stipulated because objects could be observed to fall towards the center of the Earth, but the understanding for why this was so was not there. Now that we have a theory for why gravity exists, we no longer need to call it a Law; it's the Theory of Gravity.
Well said! It would be nice to never have to read again that evolution is only a theory, but I won't hold my breath.
#44 for you
Evolution has a great deal of evidence to back it up, and as such I certainly accept it as science and therefore most probably truth. However, neither evolution nor absolutely any other scientific theory or proof can possibly change my belief in God, except to better understand the methods of creation.
Basically, science is objective and religion is subjective. If your religious beliefs clash with scientific proof, then I think you should seriously reconsider those beliefs as they're gonna be so much easier to change than an objective science.
I don't know why any scientist would care one way or the other about the existence of God since God is pretty clearly outside the realm of science. Understanding God or that there is no God simply cannot be accomplished through scientific means. Similarly the existence of God should have zero impact on the validity and accomplishments of science.
So, please, by all means, believe whatever you want. But, it's not going to change my beliefs, nor is it going to change scientific facts.
Science as a rule leaves questions about gods religions, etc. to the philosophers and theosophers. But today science is in defensive mode. Just a little delving will reveal a very large and sophisticated anti-science movement. I should say, a movement that uses anti-science to create a wedge of provencial, fearful, angry and energized citizens. These people can swing close elections to conservatives. The conservative movement doesn't have an interest in having a science-literate populace. Or a well-educated one. Their take-away from the political unrest of the Sixties and Seventies was that when the middle class is educated and prosperous, it also gets uppity. This is a threat to the wealthy elite. Thus, we have the scions of the foes of FDR in bed with the Dominionists and Reconstructionists today.
I thnk there are two completely different dynamics at work here - one political and one scientific.
On the political front, a lt of scientists are naturally aligned with atheists (whether or not they're atheists themselves) in opposition to people who want to teach, in schools, creationism as ID as legitimate alternatives to evolution and geology; or who want to limit stem cell research; or who deny that climate change is worth discussion, etc. This is a matter of the separation of church and state, and when politics infringes upon science, scientists are going to get upset.
The second dynamic is simply the search for truth, and reaction to the bizarre obfuscation of scientific fact that is used to promote religious agendas. Your average scientist is fairly curious, reasonably pragmatic and quite precise. So when somebody asserts that there's no eidence for evolution, or quantum theory proves there's a god. or intelligent design is scientific not religious, your average scientist is going to react.
I think I react to both dynamics - it really annoys me when I see religious positions presented as legitimate bese for secular law, and I can't help myself when I read pseudo-scientific prattle presented as evidence for religion or against a sound theory.
We may as well think of the Earth as flat, even though we know it is round. Yes, science eliminates the need for the existence of God for the universe to hum along as it does. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Do we continue to believe folk-stories made up to explain things we could not explain then, or do we become enlightened by the truth once we have discovered it?
Christianity, like the other Abrahamic traditions is a perverse archaic superstition of desert nomadic tribes of the middle east from 3000 years ago!!
Yeah, but it can't be "proven" not to have happened ... therefore you shouldn't rule it out ... lest you appear closed-minded!
Really now?! The presentation of evolution by someone such as Richard Dawkins, who presents a clear understanding of evolution and the evidence for it, is some how the same as those who clearly don't understand the theory of evolution, show their ignorance when asking about "missing links", and ramble on about "irreducible complexity" as if they were talking science? Are you mad?! I'm very sorry, but the presentation of evolution by the Gnu Atheists is NOTHING like the misrepresentation of evolutionary theory provided by those creationist and ID ignoramuses.
Quotes like this contribute to my impression that this is yet another article designed simply to attack the Gnu Atheists and Fundamentalists for disagreeing with the blissful middle where science and religion join hands while signing Kumbaya.
What is science, of which the theory of evolution is a part? Since The Oxford Dictionaries of Science (Fourth Edition), Physics (Third Edition) and Chemistry (Third Edition) are silent, I executed a web search and found, amongst the myriad definitions "the systematic study of the natural world." Seems right. This, of course, begs the question, "Is there a non-natural world?"
On the other hand, what is religion? The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (1997) offers about ten pages in the beginning (no pun intended) on the various present and historical meanings of religion with enough references, which if followed, could lead one to a career.
What is a bit disturbing in trying to make sense of this discussion is the lack of clearly defined terms. What is science? Do all "scientific" pursuits qualify? Dark matter(energy)? Black holes? String theory? Multiple (parallel) universes? Neuroscience? Evolution of language? And what is religion? Joe Campbell wrote The Masks of God, a four volume set, which is the most exhaustive study of religion I know. When asked what his religion was, Joe replied, "I underline books." His view was that the religious experience was what made you feel most alive.
It's interesting that anti-religion scientists seem to take a broad view of science and a narrow one of religion just as the anti-science (evolution) religious reciprocate.
Yes. Even examination of voodoo and palm reading can be scientific if the approach is to find or exclude material explanations of material phenomena. Conversely, one could worship a fossil as a sacred relic and that doesn't make the worshipper a scientist.
This isn't to say morality should be based purely on science, but without understanding how the world actually works how are you supposed to apply what is morally the right thing to do?
2. Morality is an interesting issue. One could ask, which came first morality or science? One could also ask for irrefutable scientific evidence on anything and find nothing. We accept scientific proofs with the reservation that a Galileo or Newton or Einstein or Kepler or Curie is at work somewhere to jolt us into the light, probably to be criticized by his/her peers when the news breaks.