Jerry Coyne, a world-class scientist and a fabulous writer, recently published a long opinion piece in USA Today entitled "Science and religion aren't friends." While he and others have made similar points previously, Coyne made them now with the rhetorical flourishes that make his work so provocative and entertaining.
But being provocative and entertaining is not the same thing as being successful -- or, at least, it isn't depending upon your definition of successful.
Coyne, like me, cares deeply about science literacy and is working to help educate the public about the nature and importance of science. In my opinion, he is among the best in explaining the nature of scientific investigation. Consider this section from his USA Today piece:
Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is prized, authority rejected. No finding is deemed "true" - a notion that's always provisional - unless it's repeated and verified by others. We scientists are always asking ourselves, "How can I find out whether I'm wrong?"
But that doesn't mean that he's successfully advancing the notion of science literacy that he values so highly. The problem, as I see it, is that he, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, to name just two, feels compelled to argue that science and religion are utterly incompatible -- that scientific knowledge can prove religious faith wrong.
Coyne makes it clear that he believes science is rational while religion is irrational, and only science is "equipped to find real truth." This leads him to conclude that any meaningful dialogue between the two is useless. Again, from his USA Today piece (with the italics appearing in the original):
Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.
Like religious fundamentalists, Coyne is arguing that people must choose between religion and science, that they can't accept both. There are, I believe, two problems with this position. First, pragmatically, studies have clearly suggested that in the United States, when people are given this choice, they will more often than not opt for religion. Now, I'm not suggesting that Coyne, or any of us who care deeply about science, should pervert our understanding of the discipline simply to make converts. No, I'm arguing that there is a way to promote the principles of scientific inquiry fully while not alienating many who are likely to be supporters by belittling their sincerely held beliefs.
Second, the extreme position Coyne has articulated is at odds with much of religion as well as with the basic precepts of science. In fact, religion isn't the monolithic, dogmatic enterprise Coyne describes, while science can't provide answers to every question humans can imagine.
As with many great writers, there is much that is wise and true in what Coyne says. Perhaps most importantly, he makes the case that when religions make empirical claims about the natural world, scientific knowledge has to trump faith. Every scientist I know would likely agree with this statement. Similarly, though, the vast majority of religious leaders I know would also likely agree. The only religious leaders apt to argue are those extreme fundamentalists who believe that their faith traditions are designed to teach us about the workings of the material world. Yes, people like Ken Ham, Albert Mohler and Pat Robertson espouse such dogma, but to imply that they are representative of the majority of religious leaders is ridiculous and gives them power that they don't deserve.
The religious leaders I know and the thousands upon thousands who have joined together to create The Clergy Letter Project, take their faith seriously and are outspoken advocates for science. Their view of religion is not as simplistic as Coyne would have us believe, and their goals are not nearly as narrow as he implies.
I wrote the following in May and it still sounds right to me:
Many, many religious leaders understand that religion is not dependent upon a single interpretation of any text. Instead, the overwhelming majority of the religious leaders with whom I interact regularly believe that religion is about morality and spirituality rather than science. They want to make the world a better, a fairer and a more just place and they believe they can accomplish that within a spiritual community.
I can well appreciate that not everyone might share those views or the belief that they might be accomplished within a spiritual community. (Please recognize that neither I nor the religious leaders about whom I am writing are implying that work within a spiritual community is the only way to achieve these goals.) I am arguing, however, that science is not positioned to deny the spiritual sense that some find within religion or the good that might arise from that sense.
I believe it is possible to turn the disagreements I have with Coyne into something positive and to use it to help demonstrate a path forward. Although I disagree vehemently with some of what Jerry Coyne has to say, particularly when he strays from science into philosophy, I also recognize the value in his science. Indeed, I am so impressed with his articulate defense of evolution that I use his wonderful book, Why Evolution is True, as a text for my class on the evolution/creation debate. In other words, our disagreement on some points doesn't preclude me from celebrating our similarities.
Coyne and other "new atheists" share many values with religious leaders. If he would stop picking fights with those most likely to be his allies, he would dramatically improve science literacy. And he wouldn't have to sacrifice any of the principles of science to do so.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Marilynne Robinson: Religion, Science and the Ultimate Nature of Reality
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
More fuel for faith-vs.-science debate - Los Angeles Times
Michael Ruse: Accommodationism in the Religion-Science Debate: Why ...
"There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: 'Let us be friends.' It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: 'Let us agree not to step on each other's feet.'" - Robert Green Ingersoll, interview in The Truth Seeker, 1885
In the U.S. it seems that "we no longer value the principle of reasoning and educated discourse." 81% of Americans believe in heaven, 78% in angels, 70% in Satan, and 70% in hell. These magical and superstitious beliefs make it easy for many of our brethren to disrespect science, learning, and education. Many of our politicians actually encourage this nonsense... wouldn't it be the end of a modern American politician's chance of being President if he declared that he didn't believe that Jesus was born from a virgin, and died for our sins, but was resurrected on the third day...?
The outspoken atheists are saying that America's love affair with religion is making many people ignorant. And they are making the simple argument that believing in ANY magical realms, or supernatural beings is not reasonable.
It's also how you could put 99% of what I wrote on the subject into a nutshell. But people keep on doing it, just like you did.
Here's why it's false: because skepticism and philosophy and methodology themselves can lead you to consistent worldviews in which even the 'natural ontological attitude' with respect to science is on a par with skeptical approaches to religion.
That's why your view is narrow: because you neglect the existence of highly skeptical forms of religion, while at the same time over-estimating what science can really achieve under the self-imposed restrictions of skepticism.
What I say is not at all a new point of view. It's how (many, though not all) philosophers and anthropologists and sociologists have viewed it for a long time.
It's also how theologians have viewed it for a long time. Their neglect is that they failed to tell anyone.
Example please. somehow I doubt what you consider to be "highly skeptical" ranks above "moderately gullible" according to scientific standards of skepticism but let's see what it is you're talking about.
I can understand you wanting to distance yourself from these guys. But, just because these men may hold *more* supernatural beliefs than many other religious people, that doesn't make other religious peoples supernatural beliefs compatible with science.
If person (A) believes 1000 things that are incompatible with science, and person (B) only believes 5 things ... person (B)'s beliefs are still ... incompatible with science
It's not the quantity of beliefs ... it's the quality.
If I were to believe that a man resurrected from the dead ... my 'not believing' in Noah's Ark, would not make my resurrection belief any more reasonable.
Yes, there are religious people who accept most scientific findings ... but that does not make their supernatural belief compatible with science.
And, if you say there is nothing supernatural involved in your religion ... it's not a religion ... it's a philosophy.
But many people who are unfamiliar with the history of philosophy don't know that they're "only doing philosophy", they think that it's religion. (Like all Buddhists, Reformed Jews, etc.)
Part of the reason they're misled into thinking that it's religion is that it still has rituals, poetry, a place where people meet, etc.
(Actually I think that your statement is false, but I'm trying to play along.)
No god to worship or ask favors of. A founder who tells you ' Don't take my word for anything,Prove these things for yourself '
No promise of after life (in some schools) Nothing Sacred.
Buddhism and Taoism just do not fit in the "Religion" box ,at least in my view.
Of course you could say that 'Any REAL Buddhist think it's a religion. and therefore "I" am not a REAL Buddhist.
That is exactly why I added that last sentence.
I was addressing the incompatibility of supernaturally based religious belief and science.
"(Like all Buddhists, Reformed Jews, etc.)"
It depends on what type of Buddhist, Jew, etc.
There are people who practice Buddhism "philosophy" yes, and there are Buddhists who have supernatural beliefs. Just as there are religious Jews, and secular Jews (who identify as Jewish, only in a cultural way). ........ But, that's really beside the point of my comment.
Without the disclaimer ... do you disagree that supernatural religious beliefs are incompatible with the study of the natural world?
Science is the horse that pulls the stubborn cart of religion; and it is religion which arrogantly and ironically prides itself on proclaiming a monopoly over morality and spirituality.
NOMA is complete nonsense: a logic-twisting quick-fix to justify belief in obsolete myth.
I'm under the distinct impression that Mohler takes his homophobic faith very seriously. The idea that gay people choose to be gay and there's something "sinful" about gay sex strikes me as very unscientific, but the fundies are far from alone in this absurd belief. It's the default setting for xians. Incompatible.
I've read your article several times trying to understand what it is you want. You are clearly unhappy with Coyen's stance that Science and Religion is incompatible. But you say the role of Religion is spiritual and morality not science. Doesn't sound like your jurisdictions are conflicting.
Please tell us What is it you would like to hear from the Scientist ?
I was started reading an old book on Logic. One of the authors from the 16century ,started of by saying that "NO Logic could ever disprove that God and his Son JC,were the ect, ect."
At first glance I shut the book saying what kind of Logic could be in this book thinking like this?.
Then It occured to me. This man was printing a disclaimer, so he could never be accused of heresy, or branded and atheist. He was scared.
Is this the sort of 'kissing the ring of the clergy' you are looking for?
Is this what you want from educated scientific experts?
Religion and Science are empirically different. Religion is based on personal philosophy while science tends to be more tangible. You can see that in these posts. No matter how hard someone who does have a religion or faith tries to explain that we can have both and live happily there will always be that person who either says a) where is your proof for believing or b) God is God and who are you to question his work with science? Either way, both sides (IMO) are wrong. I think Mr. Zimmerman just wants people to realize that and get over the whole "I have to be right over everything" and work together to promote scientific literacy and make a cohesive learning environment.
I'm still a little baffled on calling for "scientific literacy". Except for a few like "string theory" most findings are understandable and mesh perfectly with how modern people see the world around us. Once continantal drift was a theory, now technology shows it is a fact.
Mr. Zimmerman even compliments Coyne on his diligence to finding the 'truth', even thinking of ways to try to disprove your own theorys as a test.
And in the spirit of " Religious Literacy" I would ask Mr. Zimmerman and his followers to apply the same kind of dilligence to their work and pronouncements. To ..hmm? let's say 'Creationism' just for a start.
And certainly not 'Prove Scientificly that something we can't see, hear, smell, feel,or in any way account for, Does//Doesn't really exist, cause we want it to be there.'
Why do you think they fail to recognize it? I certainly recognize that science is based on philosophical materialism. That's not a problem, because observation strongly suggests that philosophical materialism is correct - matter IS all that's real. And that includes the matter our minds are made of.
Matter isn't necessarily dead. A tiny fraction of matter on what planet that we know of is alive. Some of those living organisms have complex central nervous systems that give rise to the cognitive processes we call "minds". There is no impediment to science studying mind, other than the ethical restrictions on experimenting on human subjects, and there is a lot of research going on in that area.
So very true. And the same could be said about thousands and tons of other similar articles.
Of course you can trash fundamentalist and literalist and inerrant bible thumpers. Without any loss whatsoever to be afraid of.
But the REAL challenge is to UNDERSTAND why folks pertain to this. Unless New Atheists (or New Revisionists or New Aquarians) get a grasp of THIS, they will be orbiting empty space forever and ever.
The issue is not just the fundamentalists. It's the many religious moderates and liberals who accept the facts of science while not really understanding the science and while continuing to require no evidence for their religious beliefs. It is as much the people who say "evolution is true and evolution is how god did things" as it is the people who completely deny evolution.
YOU need to understand this position of Coyne and others and actually address it. Not just falsely accuse Coyne of trashing fundamentalists.
You have a narrow and dogmatic notion of "reason".
Be that as it may.
My question is this: what's the use of trashing perfectly sound worldviews with arguments that apply only to their degenerate forms?
Of course bible thumpers should be trashed out of existence. But what ELSE do you need? I just can't seem to find it.
Or do they merely claim that particular forms of religion are incompatible with science?
A lot is hidden here. Because neither science nor religion have so far managed to make one iota of sense of THEMSELVES without the admission that they need to understand their respective history and / or evolution in the same process or act.
That's what understanding has going on for itself. That it's a process. Not a thing.
btw I also don't give another rats butt about what Coyne seems to think that he knows or whatever.
What I do know is that the assertion that religion depends on supernatural powers for it to make sense is thoroughly incompatible with the history of religion.
And you know why?
Because folks didn't HAVE any valid notion of natural or supernatural back then.
That's why.
In fact I think them scientest should do a study, on wheather or not ' straining at gnats and passing beams' will really turn one's brain to musth.
Harris and Dawkins tend to argue that religious faith is incompatible with science. That taking knowledge on faith is incompatible with the scientific approach of taking knowledge on evidence and reason. So really they aren't arguing that science and religion are incompatible, rather science and faith are incompatible. This criticism extends to anyone using religious faith, including for example both Christian fundamentalists and Christian moderates.
Which wouldn't surprise me at all, because it shows all the way that they haven't.
There are important milestones in that theory, and they can't just ignore them just to sell more books or to get big fat fees for their public speeches. To do so is just as illegitimate as it was illegitimate for catholic clerics to have people pay for the absolution.
The New Atheists need a little Luther or a Jesus to trash their habits as money changers.
The milestone referred to would be the discussion about the 'Myth of the given' in this case. It's in papers from the 1950s and builds on the work of Carnap. Nobody cares much about Carnap's vision these days, and that's because it has been taken to pieces in the 1950s.
But of course Dawkins or Harris need not bother about such minor details. They probably think that philosophy doesn't make any sense anyway, because it doesn't speak of neurons and memes all day.
What an infantile joke.
Who claims it can? Does religion effectively fill those gaps?
Person A: "Science can't answer ***this* question! Aha! Therefore we need religion!"
Person B: "Ok... so show me religion answer the question."
Person A: "Ummm... uhhh... "
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/zimmerman/
I find his response incredibly depressing because, in my opinion, he has completely mischaracterized virtually all that I've said here. From his title ("I'm told to shut up again") to his claiming that I've offered a gratuitous slur on science by writing, "In fact, religion isn’t the monolithic, dogmatic enterprise Coyne describes, while science can’t provide answers to every question humans can imagine," he seems absolutely unwilling to enter into civil discourse.
Coyne tries to look into my heart when he noted, "I do think [people] should give up superstition in favor of naturalism, but if they want to entertain incompatible views in their brain, so be it. What Zimmerman really hates is that by making people think about the issue, I could turn some away from evolution." For those of you who have read even a bit of what I've had to say on the issue, you'll know that I try very hard to get people to think explicitly about these issues. Indeed, one of the premises of The Clergy Letter Project is to engage in meaningful dialogue on just this subject. But, the thousands of us who comprise The Clergy Letter Project work to have this dialogue in a manner that precludes name calling and vilification.
Please let me know what you think and how best to proceed.
And yes, you did tell me to stop criticizing religion in the name of science education. The best way to proceed is to just let me do my own thing.
Scientists like Coyne, on the other hand, dismiss the uncertainties in science as inconsequential. On several occasions he has qualified questions about species and religion with the phrase "depending on how you define..."
For me, again, science is a domain of inquiry into a universal "truth", depending on how you define truth, but religion is about personal experience. The best writings I know on the subject are the William James Gifford lectures of a century ago printed as The Varieties of Religious Experience.
As a Unitarian Universalist, where one's view of religion is inconsequential, I am more permissive than most, but that's my choice which is how I interpret God's admonition in the Garden of Eden, "It's your choice, not someone elses."