Presented at the Orange County Freethought Alliance Conference May 15, 2011, Irvine, CA.
"People of faith" are universally treated with great deference. The religious are assumed to be persons of the highest moral standards -- exemplars of goodness, kindness, and charity. But why should that be? How does faith qualify anyone for such high esteem? After all, faith is unquestioning belief in the absence of supportive evidence and even in light of contrary evidence. How can one expect such a frame of mind to result in any special insight? While a false belief may be comforting or even temporarily useful, it cannot be a guide to life or the foundation for a successful society. Are we not then irresponsible to build a society based on faith? And how foolish are we, the unfaithful, to defend the beliefs of people of faith?
Religion and science have long been at war with one another. Given the dominant role that religion plays in American society today, most scientists and many national scientific organizations have compromised their principles in order to stay on good terms with religious groups. They try to divide up the territory, leaving science to decide what "is" and religion to decide what "ought to be." However, nowadays, religious leaders and their political supporters are increasingly, and more stridently, trying to define the real world on their own terms. In the process, they are undermining scientific consensus on issues of great consequence to humans everywhere, such as overpopulation and planetary climate change. Scientists and those who believe in reason and empirical evidence have to stop sitting back and letting ideology rather than data control public policy.
Some authors claim that, historically, religion and science have contributed constructively to one another. However, over the millennia religion has been more of a hindrance than a help to the development of science. It was surely no accident that the scientific revolution of the eighteenth century happened only after the revolts against Church authority in the Renaissance and Reformation opened up new avenues of thought.
Religion is based on faith. By contrast, science is not based on faith but on objective observations of the world. This makes religion and science fundamentally incompatible. Science poses the question, "What are you going to believe: the dreams and fantasies of ancient mystics or your eyes, ears, telescopes, magnetic resonance imaging, hadron colliders, and above all, reason and rigorous questioning of all extraordinary claims?"
Let's take a look at the incompatibilities between religion and science. The battle between evolutionary biologists and creationists is well known. Less well known are the ways theists and spiritualists misuse and misrepresent physics and cosmology to claim scientific support for their belief in a supernatural creation. They falsely claim that cosmology supports a created universe. They falsely claim that the parameters of physics are fine-tuned for human life. They falsely claim that modern physics provides a means for God to act in the world without being detected. They falsely claim that quantum mechanics implies that humans can make their own reality -- just by thinking they can.
At the current stage of scientific development, we can confidently say that there is no need to introduce supernatural forces in understanding the universe.
Allow me to give some of the reasons why I believe that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. And then I will show why it matters.
All religions, even Buddhism, teach that a reality exists that goes beyond -- transcends -- the material world that presents itself to our senses and scientific instruments. Many believers and nonbelievers alike claim that science has nothing to say about the supernatural. But they fail to acknowledge that if the supernatural exists and has effects on the material world, then those effects should be observable and subject to scientific study.
While science is willing to consider any evidence that comes along, so far none has appeared that requires any immaterial entity be added to the models that already describe our observations of the world around us with great precision.
Basic to most religions is the notion of divine creation. Prior to the twentieth century there were good reasons to think that the universe could not have come into existence naturally, that a miraculous creation was required that violated basic laws of physics. Today, however, we can say that a purely natural origin of the universe is fully conceivable based on existing knowledge.
A question often asked is "how can something come from nothing?" The simplest answer is that our universe is just one of many in a multiverse that always existed and so did not have to come from anything.
Similarly, biologists have found no special "vital force" within living organisms that might be associated with a soul. And, neuroscientists have found no sign of immaterial components to the human mind.
For centuries thinkers have argued that the observed order we see around us is evidence for divine design in the universe. We now understand that the existence of cosmic order does not violate any principles of physics. Today's intelligent design creationist movement argues that complex biological structures require an architect and builder and that natural processes cannot generate new information. They are wrong. The generation of complex systems from simpler systems can be seen in many physical situations, such as the natural, spontaneous transitions from gas to liquid to solid. The condensing of water vapor to a liquid, and liquid water to ice, is the prime example of how complexity arises naturally from simplicity
Complex life on Earth evolved naturally from simpler forms. Despite overwhelming evidence, only one-third of Americans say they accept evolution. This would seem to indicate that at least some Christians agree with evolution. However, this is misleading. Surveys that ask what people actually believe indicate that virtually no Christians accept the theory of evolution as understood by modern biology. For example, during his recent Easter address, the Pope told Catholics that while they can believe in evolution, they must accept that it is still God-guided. Quoting the Pope:
It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.
Prove it Mr. Pope.
In fact, God plays no role in the conventional Darwinian theory, or conventional cosmology for that matter. Polls show that virtually no Christians really believe in evolution by random mutations and natural selection, which is the accepted theory among biologists. Those Christians who say they accept evolution really believe in another form of intelligent design, God-guided evolution. Darwinian evolution is godless. It says humanity was an accident. This is completely incompatible with Christianity, which assumes humans are a special creation of God.
I need not review all the other issues that fundamentally divide science from religion. Other speakers and authors have amply covered these matters. Rather I would like to show why the incompatibility between religion and science matters and why it is so important that we not just sit back and let this nation become a theocracy ruled by blind faith rather than science and reason.
The war between theology and science would not matter much if it were just an academic dispute. Unfortunately, religion seriously hampers science from being put to use for the benefit, indeed the very survival, of humanity. Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Yet in America our best biological knowledge is not being taught in many if not most high schools. This neglect is bound ultimately to have a negative impact on human health sciences as well as basic biological research.
In America, religious groups are being manipulated by corporate interests to work against their own members' best interests, in health and economic well-being. They are being used to cast doubt upon well-established scientific findings in important issues such as overpopulation, pollution, and global warming. This would not be happening except for the diametrically opposed world-views of religion and science. In America today, corporate interests and the conservative politicians they have purchased use religion to stifle science.
When belief in ancient myths joins with other negative forces in our society, they hinder the world from advancing scientifically, economically, and socially at a time when a rapid advancement in these areas is absolutely essential for the survival of humanity. We now may be only about a generation or two away from the catastrophic problems predicted to result from global warming, pollution, and overpopulation. Our children and grandchildren could be faced with flooded coastal areas, severe climatic changes, epidemics caused by overcrowding, and increased starvation for much of humanity. Such disasters would generate worldwide conflict on a scale that is likely to exceed that of the great twentieth-century wars, possibly with nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable nations and terrorist groups.
Now, I understand that anthropogenic global warming is a very controversial issue. Whatever the truth, whether or not the current warming trend is caused by human activity, surely this finite planet cannot withstand a continuation of humanity's current exponential growth in population and exploitation of natural resources. Ten thousand years ago, a blink in time in the history of life, there were just one million human beings on Earth. Two hundred years ago the population was one billion. Today we are almost at seven billion. The estimate for 2050 is nine billion.
There simply is no way that we can sustain this rate of growth. Earth cannot possibly handle it. Something has to give, and give soon. And the cause of this problem can be laid directly at the feet of religion and its unsupportable positions on when life begins, reproductive rights, environmental controls, as well as its general distrust of science.
Of course, I am not saying anything here you haven't heard before. The less familiar argument I want to make is that powerful corporate interests are using religion to throw doubt upon the work of climate scientists and others who are warning us about the dangers ahead. This is dirty politics -- not legitimate scientific debate.
The role of religion in climate change denialism is not widely appreciated. Let me just give two examples that illustrate the thinking:
1. The Rev. Jim Ball, senior director for climate programs at the Evangelical Environmental Network that accepts the science of global warming, said that many of the deniers feel that “it is hubris to think that human beings could disrupt something that God created... This group already feels like scientists are attacking their faith and calling them idiots so they are likely to be skeptical” about global warming (as quoted by Leslie Kaufman, "Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets, New York Times, March 3, 2010).
2. The Cornwall Alliance for The Stewardship of Creation has issued what they call "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming." Allow me to quote from that declaration:
We believe Earth and its ecosystems--created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence --are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. . . . We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth's climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry.
In other words, trust in God. He won't let us destroy life on earth. Could there be any better example of the folly of faith?
In conclusion, it is time for scientists and other rationalists to join together to put a stop to those who claim they have some sacred right to decide what kind of society the rest of us must live in. We must act for the sake of the betterment of humankind, and the future of our planet. Based on the favorable signs that young people are increasingly abandoning religion, I have great hope that perhaps in another generation America will have joined Europe and the rest of the developed world in casting off the rusty chains of ancient superstition that stand as an impediment to science and progress. I just hope it's not too late.
Victor Udoewa: Doubt: A Scientific And Religious Perspective
Victor Udoewa: The Roles of Doubt in Science and Faith
Peter Baksa: How Does Prayer Actually Work?
It is clear that religion has been a colossal failure at dealing with reality. The problem is compounded by what C. P. Snow called the two worlds, where most people, even those who think they are educated, are ignorant of basic science and math. Even more as Carl Sagan pointed out: "We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
Our problem is that we have ignorant people and those willing to exploit them, no matter the cost to others. For example, people that talk of "Intelligent Design" demonstrate that they know nothing of either. If a young engineer designed for me, say, the human retina, which is wired backwards and inside out, OR the human urinary/reproductive system, with its tangles and open ductwork, I would fire him on the spot for incompetence.
It is only controversial with those who live in ignorance or deliberate denial to the overwhelming, rigourously examined evidence for anthropogenic global warming. that includes many in the US Congress. The evidence for man-influenced global warming essentially over in the scientific circles. The TRUTH is that man-made greenhouse gasses are having a dramatic influence on the earth's temperature. The leaders in the denial game have a vested interested in muddying the climate change waters.
You are only adding fuel to the religious fires by giving ANY credence to any real controversy. Until we stop dancing around the now well exposed elephant in the room, which is what I thought your article was about, we continue to destroy our future. This is not a war of idealogies, this is a clear case of scientificly derived truth vs. people deliberately keeping their heads in the sand or spreading a gospel of denial for pure profit.
Obviously, there must be some valid scientific problems with purely naturalistic theories like Evolution. As for breaking science rules by invoking a supernatural power, Intelligent Design doesn't need any supernatural entity, and constantly expresses this fact in their formal communications. The theory of ID will work just as well, if the design in nature originated via aliens, or Robots from the future. Design is design, and their argument isn't based on whether God did it, completely natural sources of design are possible as well.
Personally, it was the science that tarnished Evolution in my eyes, and also those of the famous atheist, Anthony flew. In conclusion, SCIENCE supports Intelligent design.
Science actually supports non-anthropromorphic Global warming as well. Try addressing the SCIENTISTS who express concerns about it, instead of evangelicals.
If you do, you will find that faith isn't at war with science at all, it's the other way around.
I can win any science argument, if I only quoted the opposing views of those scientifically ill equipped.
Joe Jensen.
If only this paragraph could be made into huge billboards to be placed on the lawn in front of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., and in front of every state capitol of the land.
A single cell with a nucleus is the microscopic equivalent of a high tech industrialized city. It is surrounded by a wall with a tight security system. Raw materials enter and manufactured products leave selectively. The city contains factories in production around the clock tied to a trillion others by a communication network that dictates repairs and keeps inventory. A library within each city contains blueprints for every piece of machinery and maintenance equipment used. Directions for all of this are encoded in DNA of each CELL within the microscopic nucleus. Two meters of DNA is found in every human cell with 46 chromosomes in a nucleus. Although Darwin reduced creation to single cell blobs of protoplasm out of a "primordial soup" the DNA in his body could go back and forth to the sun 50 times. I'll keep my faith in God
I shake each box, distributing the matches randomly. I select a single match from each box. I will then have a sequence of six color/number pairs.
Assuming that the order of the colors I select is fixed, what is the final probability Fp of having drawn that particular sequence?
Fp = P(red) x P(orange) x P(yellow) x P(green) x P(blue) x P(purple)
Fp = 1/1,000 x 1/1,000 x 1/1,000 x 1/1,000 x 1/1,000 x 1/1,000
Fp = 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000
You'll notice that the improbability of drawing such a sequence is *significantly less likely* than the odds posited by John Clayton and Nils Jansma.
Therefore, drawing six matches at random from six different boxes of 1,000 matches must be *really* impossible.
Right?
.
Right?
.
Hmm.
The universe is huge and old and highly improbable events can happen, somewhere, all the time.
Yet despite all of this - there is no evidence for God anywhere that we can see.
So you can keep your faith in God.
I'll continue proportioning my beliefs to the available evidence, thanks.
"Yet despite all of this - there is no evidence for God anywhere that we can see".
That YOU can see.
I present an argument using Bayesian statistics showing that fine-tuning makes God less likely.
The Earth argument above is exceptionally banal. There are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy and a hundred billion galaxies just in the visible universe. Beyond our horizon are perhaps 10^100 times more. And there are probably many other universes. What's the chance one has a planet with life?
"The probability of God is lower than any such probability calculated as above".
That's why it's called FAITH.
Blocking stem cell research.
Lying to HIV-ridden Africa that condoms don't work and forbidding the use of contraception.
Withholding basic civil rights for gays and transgenders.
'Honor' killings.
How long would you like me to continue?
One of the most important recent developments in the age old debate over religion is that the taboos against criticizing people's religious beliefs have finally begun to crumble. I credit you, Dr. Stenger, along with the other authors who have tackled these taboos head on, demolishing the false authority that religious beliefs confer on the faithful. It allows people like myself to make our voices heard as well, to challenge religious hegemony openly and without fear. The time when "people of faith" are automatically treated with great deference is coming to an end. I say, good riddance...
Nice that you so easily ascribe the contradictions to human error while assuming that the idea of god itself isn't human error.
Why would an all powerful, all seeing, all beneficent God create a world where suffering and death are the experiences of all its creations?
Why would you believe in a God for which there isn't the slightest bit of evidence? Why would you believe, absent of any independent corroboration, that 2000 years ago a carpenter was born of a virgin and 30 years later rose form the dead?
How can you view any of this as anything but utter nonsense?
Doesn't mean there couldn't be some version of God that somehow fits into everything--but that would be a quite different God than any of you would expect.
'The Rev. Jim Ball, senior director for climate programs at the Evangelical Environmental Network, a group with members who accept the science of global warming, said that many of the deniers feel that “it is hubris to think that human beings could disrupt something that God created.”
“This group already feels like scientists are attacking their faith and calling them idiots,” he said, “so they are likely to be skeptical” about global warming.'
I will be sure to correct this anyplace I refer to it in the future.
In general, I try very hard not to lift things out of context and otherwise quote accurately, but I failed here. I welcome any corrections such as yours.