Analogies are dangerous weapons. If you can persuade someone convinced that "B is terrible" that "A is like B," then they will have to agree that A must also be terrible. Having established with this analogy that A is terrible, it follows that we must then abandon A, go to war against A, stop believing A, vote A down, invade a Middle Eastern country that starts with A, keep A out of our schools, send the CIA to kill A, lampoon A until it is a laughingstock, or all of the above. "A" must be dealt with because "A is like B," and we all know how terrible B is.
Analogies run amok in culture-war arguments as we seek ever more persuasive ways to make our points. Glenn Beck, in his quixotic crusade against social justice, would have us believe that social justice is like Nazism. The Discovery Institute, in their zeal to topple Darwinism, try to convince us it is like Nazism. Pundit Michelle Malkin is routinely called a Nazi by her critics. If we take these analogies seriously, then we must hurry to get social justice off our agenda, evolution out of the public schools, and Michelle Malkin off the streets. It is a sad commentary that our public discourse has become so hyperbolic that we immediately reach for the most preposterous, over-the-top comparison. If social justice is like Nazism, then what would actual Nazism be like? What comparison could possibly be made to rally opposition to something that actually was like Nazism?
A somewhat less hyperbolic but also offensive analogy has been used against those of us who believe that science and religion are compatible. When we note, as many of us have, that there are great scientists who are religious believers and suggest that this implies a compatibility between the religious and scientific frames of mind, we are told that this is a terrible argument. We are told that it is like saying that "Catholicism is compatible with pedophilia because many Catholics are pedophiles."
This analogy, chosen for its shock value as many analogies are in our rhetorically charged world, is incredibly weak, and I would like to see it abandoned by people seeking serious discourse. Here is the problem: A religious scientist functions routinely as a scientist in the lab, perhaps looking for the gene that causes hyperbole. While they are engaged in this search they believe that God is the creator. On regular occasions this scientist goes to church, where he or she sings hymns, listens to sermons, volunteers at the soup kitchen, takes communion, and puts money in the offering plate, all the while believing that the scientific picture of the world is accurate. Occasionally this religious scientist may even daydream about finding that gene for hyperbole while listening to the sermon. At no time do the co-existing mindsets conflict or create cognitive dissonance.
This religious scientist is then compared to a pedophile clergy (I am not going to say "priest" since the only ones I know about directly are actually protestants). Superficially the analogy appears to work. A clergyman can be a pedophile, even though we understand that combination to be profoundly incompatible, which is why the analogy is so effective. It follows that simply noting that a scientist can be religious is not an argument, all by itself, that science and religion are compatible. So far so good.
But here is where, as Monty Python would say, "the argument falls to the ground." Pedophile clergy know their behavior is wrong; they know their pastoral role is incompatible with their sexual pathology; many of them are wracked with guilt over their actions and actively seeking help. There is great cognitive dissonance. This is the critical part of the so-called analogy, and when we get to this part we discover that the analogy doesn't work at all.
I think Jerry Coyne -- in contrast to his cheering throng of knee-jerk commenters -- gets this at some level. He says that the critical conclusion to be drawn from the analogy is that "anybody doing any kind of science should abandon his or her faith if they wish to become a philosophically consistent scientist." By analogy (!) we would agree that "anybody engaged in any of kind pastoral ministry should abandon any sexual impropriety if they wish to be consistent."
But, returning to the analogy above, I would offer that there are philosophically sophisticated scientists who are religious believers. In framing this particular argument, I would emphasize that scientific achievement -- think John Polkinghorne -- is most likely accompanied by a genuinely scientific frame of mind. And careful study and practice of religion -- think John Polkinghorne -- is most likely accompanied by a religious frame of mind. The harmonious co-existence of those two frames of mind is what suggests compatibility -- and even philosophical consistency, although that is a loaded phrase -- rather than the simple observation that geneticists go to church.
Follow Karl Giberson, Ph.D on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gibersok
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Albert Einstein: Religion and Science
Conflict & agreement between science and religion
"(There) are two concepts of religion. And this fact is so fundamental that...an over-all comment should be made here: If religion is defined as a state of "being grasped by an ultimate concern" — which is also my definition of faith — then we must distinguish this as a universal or large concept from our usual smaller concept of religion which supposes an organized group with its clergy, scriptures, and dogma, by which a set of symbols for the ultimate concern is accepted and cultivated in life and thought. This is religion in the narrower sense of the word, while religion defined as "ultimate concern" is religion in the larger sense of the word. The distinction of the larger concept provides us with a criterion by which to judge the concrete religions included under the smaller, traditional concept. Specific religions are inherently susceptible to criticism which keeps them alive or condemns them to come to an end, if they cannot qualify under the power of this ultimate principle."
When persons are criticizing "religion" as a subject, in order to disqualify it from the scientific mind, it would be helpful if they could point to specific parts of specifically held religions to demonstrate how this or that scientist was impeded or disabled in his science by his belief.
Overall, however, it seems unwise to attribute the traits of any one community or belief system to religion as a whole. For one thing, is is a false holding. For another, it is a slippery fish. Any "faither" can escape condemnation under such argument merely by disavowing the traits of which religion is accused.
I hold religion is "being grasped by an ultimate concern." One could also say "concerned with the ultimate question(s) of existence" or "concerned with the ultimate ground of being." 8jah has repeatedly, prosaically, and quite correctly identified this as a concern with "meaning," as in "what does it all mean?" or "has my life any meaning?"
The deterministic worldview, aka ontological materialism or metaphysical materialism, holds that meaning is irrelevant, all things and events are material and traceable to material causes, and since the big bang, the entirety of existence is reactions to reactions - nothing is or was created or destroyed, and "consciousness" is a false value - being an illusion produced by chemical reactions which create neural impulses.
Religion holds that consciousness is real, and distinct from matter.
Comments?
Sorry, it's been years since I've studied varied dogma, so some of my terms may need honing.
Agreed, but don't think it's beneficial or prudent unless the discussion directly involves the scientist in question. Interpretation is subjective by nature.
Let's make something clear. Richard Dawkins is strident. And we are united. There are thousands of atheists and even liberal beliefs who saw the Towers fall, watched things like Prop 8 (that really angered me), etc. And with a few strident New Atheists and this horrible events, we found a common cause. And many of us took to the internet. And we are the ones controlling most of the discussion. We just aren't well organized or a political lobby yet. And truthfully society and even many atheists are still warming up to this form of non-belief and non-belief in general.
But with all of us here, we really do need to ask what we are going to do about it. I don't know what, but is debating on HP really the best approach for making a strong impact.
A bunch of nonbelievers on HP and across the internet sounds like the beginnings of a grassroots movement to me.
There is science there, it's just not written with thorough explanation. Written in a way anyone can understand and choose to follow or abandon. But it is very clear 'G' is a very firm individual and no fool. If the faithless are punished or not is unclear. After some period of silence we have seen.
1) God may or may not exist.
2) God is a fictional character.
Both of the above statements are true and easily reconciled. In fact, it's pretty easy to derive. Let X be a fictional entity; then, assuming imperfect knowledge, X may or may not exist.
As an example, take the movie "Avatar". The alien world of Pandora and its Na'vi inhabitants are entirely fictional; they were invented by James Cameron to tell a story. Yet, since we haven't explored all the planets in the universe, it's possible that the Na'vi really do exist somewhere. It may not be likely, but the universe is large, and it's not impossible to rule out.
Pandora may or may not be real, but the story is still fictional. For the same reason, God may or may not be real, but the God that people believe in is fictional. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that people believe in different Gods.
Basic statistics will tell you that most people's perception of God must be wrong. "How do we know," you ask? Because there is no belief system that holds more than 50% of the world's population in thrall. If even one of them is correct, then the majority is wrong.
By and large, we live in a population that invents and believes in fictional Gods. It is best to be aware of that when engaging in these types of discussions.
Please help me with a logic exercise –
Mrs. Wilson knows you as Tom, the helpful neighbor.
Sam the grocer knows you as that guy who comes by on Fridays to buy avocados.
A certain stranger on the subway knows you as the quiet one who reads the Journal on the morning 5 train.
I know you as Etruscate.
Assuming all of the statements are true.
What percentage of us are wrong?
I cannot conceive of you as one who would go near an avocado, I have never seen you go near one, and your doctor says you are deathly allergic to them, so I reject Sam’s argument that the guy in the store on Friday’s is you.
Am I logically sound in that judgment?
Thanks
I could get into a protracted discussion about what Muslims actually believe their God asks of them, or what they think of Muhammad, or Jesus. I could contrast that with Christianity and we would see quite clearly that they claim mutually exclusive things about the universe. But I have a feeling you could have done this yourself already.
2+2=4, and
2+2=5
In one I can write a proof, and in the other, I simply have faith. See? They are compatible! QED.
Second, the problem with a scientist being religious only comes in to play when the scientist refuses to follow a line of scientific inquiry because of religious belief. Otherwise, religion and science can be compatible, until religion collides with reality. Then, if the scientist rejects reality in favor of religion, there is a problem.
In this light, I would say that Giberson's "weak analogy" argument suffers. The analogy may indeed be quite workable, if we deny the soundness of the premise that human beings are rational, or that the only solution to cognitive dissonance is to change one's ideas or behavior.
Some people with varying intelligence will fall asleep at church. Which proves nothing, of course, but still it apparently needs to be said though I haven't seen it in years.
Most people I know have read thier bible. Almost all understand and accept that it is not "scientific history" so beloved by rationalists because at the times it was written such a concept did not exist. What it does do is record the stuggle of the Hebrews to understand God, in some way, and to understand the "why" of what was happening to them. The New Testament attempts to explain the what each Gospel author(s) considers the important aspects of Jesus's teachings and the environment that it took place in. If by refute you mean refute it as history in the current sense I can do that without rejecting it.
Religion and faith are about the meaning of life whereas science is about what makes life up in terms of partciles, atoms, cells and so on. For all that there is no fundamental conflict between religion and science. Hunger, by the way, comes into the decision about what to eat only if there is a limited choice between foods and one or more of them may make you sick.
If you are very hungry and to the point of being starved, and had choices before you as to eat. You would eat the best things there to eat. If you had a bowl of grasshoppers and a bowl of strawberries.... and you were starved for food... what would you eat?. I doubt no matter how hungry i was my preference would be the fruit. EVEN though the bugs would be the better choice for a starving body as a source of protien.
If one anecdote is so powerful an argument, then how about the strong correlation between scientists and atheism, or the even stronger correlation between scientists and the rejection of established religions.
If one scientist implies reconciliation between science and religion, then what does hundreds of scientists imply about the incompatibility of science and religion?
Ultimately, this is a fruitless avenue, because one can always find reasons for dismissing the believing or unbelieving scientists.
Why does the earth orbit the sun? Ask a physicist.
Why do I look like my brother? Ask a genetisist.
Why do I love my wife? Ask a psychologist.
For all that gcarl's comments can sometimes seem a bit idiosyncratic and opaque to the untrained eye, both he and 8jah evince a depth of understanding I find rare here. I really, really appreciate comments that betray maturity and intellectual force to be reckoned with. Thank you for your contributions.
A scientist may be religious, no problem, but that has nothing to do with his/her scientific endeavors except maybe to waste time and resources.
Seeking to understand God's world is not rejecting God, and admitting that humans do not understand God is not rejecting science.