Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 5 March 2008 | Nature 452, 17 (2008) | doi:10.1038/452017a
Column: Party of One
The scientist delusion
Religious resistance to science is often exaggerated, but fresh problems may lie ahead, says David Goldston.
Cosmologist Rocky Kolb began a public lecture last month with a slide amusingly titled "The View of Cosmology 1,000 Years Ago (and In Present-Day Kansas)". The joke, a reference to recent battles over teaching evolution in the state of Kansas, was telling.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
The direction of causation Because science only determines the correlation of processes, it cannot determine which is cause and which is effect. The result of this uncertainty is that the different belief structures are complementary not in opposition to one another. If we posit a totally causal universe, we have three main choices. The first is top-down. God created the universe, and the process from then on followed the causal ladder down. Evolution was God’s way of creating humans, even though causality prevented him from giving them autonomy. The second is bottom up. The particles and fields of the universe in their complex interaction produced both genes and environment and as a result this jumble of apparent nonsense managed to produce both us, and a meaningless environment. The third option is that we experience ourselves as creatures of choice, limited in choice by our environment, but nonetheless we can use this choice to help humanity develop towards intelligence and better lives. This systems view allows our apparent freedom to give meaning to our lives. Anyone who wishes to feel despondent and at the mercy of a hostile universe is equally free to feel that, but then that person can not win our sympathy by presenting its cause being a universe whose characteristics are of their own manufacture.
Good article, but I really don't think the danger science is in is over-exaggerated. For example here in Texas, on April 24, 2008, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is considering an application by the Institute of Creation Science (ICS) to grant online master's degrees in science education. From their website one can see they want to teach literally the bible as truth in science classes. Astronomy, Geology, Biology. Some of their claims are that the earth is thousands of years old, animal diversity can be traced to Noah's ark, evolution does not occur, etc... Imagine if you teach biology in a high school or junior college and some biology teachers teach the aforementioned while the rest of us teach real science.
One of the interesting things about religion is that it is a composite thing. It is composed of beliefs and dogmas, rituals, cultures, arts, emotions, and fears, but it is also, and more importantly, a means that humans have of caring for others. Religion combines the efforts of many and focuses that facility towards the caring for others in various needy conditions. In my estimation, that is a worthwhile and even a noble social justification of religion, probably the greatest justification. But the purpose of care is no justification for religious beliefs that attempt to usurp the role of science in understanding our physical world. Science should seek to undermine any religious beliefs that attempt a pretense of being scientific. Scientists should not tip toe around beliefs that have only slight credulity based only on some scriptural tautology and should loudly proclaim such beliefs as nonsense. Science also has a social responsibility to maintain its integrity by questioning anything that depends solely on mystical revelation as its value. But science also has a social responsibility to realize and affirm the positive side of religion, for religion is how humanity cares for those who cannot care for themselves. In doing so, science might even open up a new venue in sociology, the science of caring.
The author of this interesting article suggests that ethical “conundrums†relating to new scientific discoveries and potential medical interventions “may leave even atheists longing for some theological guidance on how to decide what is moralâ€. As an atheist, I can never imagine wanting such guidance about any aspect of the world. Theology is the study of imaginary entities (gods, souls, heavens), and its irrationality and dogmatic doctrines form no basis for reasoned analyses of, and considered responses to, events in the real world. And in response to Mason Kelsey’s comments: I do not believe that “religion is how humanity cares for those who cannot care for themselvesâ€. Caring people care for others, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. There are many examples of charitable secular organisations. Believing unjustifiable ideas is not a prerequisite for moral behaviour. As Sam Harris has written, “compassion is deeper than religionâ€.
What I like about this article is it proposes the increasingly-chasmic scientific and religious opinions in a still discussable way. The page of evolution-creation should only be turned when obsevations are as evident as "the earth turns around the sun" and not the contrary. As somebody whose limited brain does not accomodate the speciation by natural selection-a continuous spontaneous process by definition, I criticize the lately launched "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" Creationism†by the National Academy of Sciences to compare the science behind evolution to the one behind the atomic structure of matter and the circulation of blood.
Mr Kelsey, Society doesnt need religion to 'care'. I(atheist) care a great deal. Imagine if we still had churches but did not preach about 'God', but talked about maybe philosophy, social issues, etc. A sense of community will still be there and I would be all for that.
"discoveries in genetics and neuroscience are likely to be far more problematic in the long run. The two fields are verging on drawing the ultimate materialist picture of human nature — humans as nothing more than proteins and electrical impulses" This is incorrect. Genetics and neuroscience are advancing our understanding of the physical processes involved in human nature, but this in no way entails the ultimate materialist picture. Genetics and neuroscience tell us that we are proteins (and other types of molecules) and electrical impulses, but cannot tell if we are more than that or not. The claim that we are nothing but mindless molecular processes is a philosophical assertion; the claim that mindless molecular processes play major roles in shaping our nature is amply verified by biology. The data of genetics and neurology is equally compatible with the belief that humans are merely the product of physical forces and the belief that humans have souls that are interacting with these physical forces. (For that matter, the two options are not inherently contradictory, though I don't know of actual examples of people who believe in non-material souls arising from an entirely materialistic universe.) The same error underlies much of the fuss over evolution. Evolution is a good description of observed biological processes and patterns. No matter how loudly people claim otherwise, it can't tell us anything about whether God or some equivalent was involved in the process. All any scientific law or theory does is tell about the physical behavior of things.
Thank you for this wonderful article. Just as it is important to resist attempts by fundamentalists to circumscribe science it is also important to challenge those who prefer the top down approach from doing the same. All views should be treated with respect and amicably. In some ways the institutional nature of science can be more resistant to change than religious fundamentalists. Many of us can see that the statistics of minorities and women in science indicate a problem that seems to be getting worse in that the pool of undergrads and post grads is growing yet the tenured and administrative positions have yet to open up sufficiently. This is regularly and openly discussed yet corrective action is ever-contemplated. "New discoveries about the human genome and neuroscience" do indeed play an important role in challenging the "more widely held notions about what it means to be a person" especially for scientists. Defining a concept and using it to guide research (top down) is OK (anything goes). But insisting that those concepts are material without strong material evidence or that working concepts are irreducible, have complexity or are emergent should be questioned in light of "The two fields are verging on drawing the ultimate materialist picture of human nature — humans as nothing more than proteins (and other molecules, ions etc.) and electrical impulses, all machine and no ghost" This view of human nature is quite beautiful in that the plasticity of the human brain allows for a focus on our cooperative nature that embodies the scientific pursuit and allows us to look beyond pre and early Darwinian thoughts about human nature that still plague so many institutional leaders and others. Removing human intellect (folk psychology) from the center of the universe will prove just as challenging as it was to remove the earth from same center and I suspect science and philosophical institutions will long resist. If we can use the perspective of a cosmologist and then a physiologist and become comfortable with the chaotic interactions therein perhaps we can find a place for ourselves between those two perspectives. If not "is this just a casual way to say that they viscerally reject the notion of a random Universe?"
Having just read the "Journey of Man" by Spencer Wells and having started the Perennial Philosophy by Huxley - I realized what I nice segue physical evolution was for our early conceptualization of our psyche. They seem to parallel each other while complementing two very different spheres. Crude introspection of either science or metaphysics leaves one feeling that there is more then meets the eye - and unsatisfied by the explanation. Science shouldn't extrapolate the rational behind human existance - it can only provide some tools for the study of processes. Even as a scientist, I'm not entirely conviced that I am a sum of my "drives" - and it is a blessing (pardon the wording) that we, as humans, were "created" as being so relentlessly curious about ourselves. Narcissim has its virtues.