There has been a bit of a resurgence of science versus religion posts and chatter in various forums* that I inhabit when I’m not working lately. It occurred to me that it might be time to do one of my sermons.
There are basically two popular views of the relation between science and religion. One is the All-Or-Nothing view: science is either entirely subsumed under religion, or totally excluded from it. The other is the view that each has their own special role – Stephen Gould called it the Non-Overlapping Magisterial Authority (NOMA) view. Both are, in my opinion, quite wrong, both factually/historically, and prescriptively.
Science is a process undertaken by human beings. Religion is also a process undertaken by human beings. They are conceptually distinct, but human beings are not driven by conceptual niceties. Rather than seeing religion and science as isolated endeavours, or as the same thing, it is best to expect that science and religion will have their own domains but that these domains will occasionally overlap. As I like to say it, religion and science jostle each others’ elbows for space on the dancing floor of human activities.
Often, religion is used as an inspiration for some scientific goals, or even for results. It is fair to say that the linear notion of time now employed by cosmology would not have been widely adopted in western thought if not for the Christian eschatological tradition. But this doesn’t immediately license the other claim that some religious want to make: that science would not have occurred if not for theism. I think this is just wrong. Some science depended on prior religious views, but a whole lot depended even more on pre-theist views like those of Aristotle, or of Plato, or the neo-Platonists, or the classical Empiricists. And in any case, there’s a fallacy lurking here – the Genetic Fallacy.
According to the Genetic Fallacy, the worth of something is its origin, not its present utility or function. Think of those who talk about “drug money” being somehow morally tainted and therefore of no use for, say, feeding the poor. Likewise, the appeal to authority, especially long dead authorities like the authors of religious texts, is a kind of genetic fallacy. They were right or they were wrong, and it doesn’t really matter how high an esteem we now hold them in, nor how low.
So the idea that religion has to be right, or supported, or included, because some aspects of present science have a history that (necessarily, given our cultural history) includes theism, is a fallacy. If an idea came from Satan by FedEx, and worked in science, it would nevertheless be true or justified in science.
In the 18th and later the 19th centuries, there was an increasing move to distance the control and censoring of science from the religious powers-that-be. An example of this is Richard Owen, a precursor to Darwin. Owen was moved by the increasing evidence of biological variety to suggest that the morphology of animals evolved over time. This was seen as politically radical by the church authorities to whom he owed his position at the Royal College of Surgeons, and his Cambridge contacts, and contrary to religion (the two views being more or less the same at the time). He was therefore persuaded to relinquish the idea.
Now, when Darwin firmly established the view that species evolved, Owen tried, understandably, to garner some of the credit for himself, to no avail, and an anonymous review of the Origin in the Edinburgh Review by him praised his own genius and denigrated Darwin’s novelty. Had religion remained agnostic about the history of living things at the time, maybe we’d now be praising or attacking Owenism. Instead he became an implacable opponent of Thomas Huxley and therefore of the “Darwinians”.
Religion has often tried to constrain science, and always will. Conclusions that do not cohere nicely with some doctrine or suggest a consequence that is regarded as unpalatable will be attacked by largely scientifically ignorant religious authorities. Religious views that do not fit the consensus social opinions of those who are scientifically literate will be attacked as dangerous or foolish. The issue is not, therefore, whether science and religion are in conflict, for they always are to some extent. The issue is whether or not they are improperly affecting from without the development of their own traditions. Scientifically literate religious people will try to amend their own traditions from within; that is entirely appropriate in my view. And while it is every person’s right to disagree with this or that social view, I think that change of religious views in favour of a more liberal relationship between science and religion will not be achieved by critics from without those traditions. Atheists are too easy to caricature, by the religious, just as the religious believers are too easy to caricature by atheists. Instead attacking in the “name of science” any religion is simply going to harden resistance to the modern world.**
What I want to see is that religion tends to its own business and doesn’t use the secular structures and its majority of the populace to control the way science investigates, nor the conclusions it will reach. Reality is not orthodox. Likewise I would like to see that those who do science or promote it (as it surely should be, being the only successful epistemological innovation of the past 200,000 years) avoid trying to limit or denigrate the role of religion in a society. Religion is here to stay, and if we (whoever that eponymous “we” may be) insist on it going to get a reasonable society, we are in for many centuries of bitterness and disappointment. Science is here now and we should incorporate it into our society in a positive fashion, not a negative one.
So I will continue to defend the right of those with whom I disagree to believe what they like, and of those who do science to not be hedged about or attacked. There will be, as football fans like to call it here, a bit of biffo. Let’s make it constructive and fun rather than life or death.
* It’s an English word now, so it gets English plurals. Likewise platypuses, octopuses and viruses. So there.
** I really really really hate the term “modernity”, which gives a false impression that there is some monolithic worldview that opposes that which came before.
D’oh! And then I read chapter 16…
Great article.
I will continue to defend the right of individuals to believe and expound on their beliefs freely. And that includes those pointing out that religion is always trying to constrain science and that religion willingly accepts a continuing negative role in society.”
Though I could argue about “the linear notion of time now employed by cosmology”. Technically it is correct, and it certainly seems more and more certain that natural models comes out linear. But circular notions are intimately tied into the linear notion.
We can’t observe time without using clocks, and being harmonic oscillators they exemplify “circular time”. Of course, synchronizing phase shifted clocks still resolves the fundamental linear value in a fashion AFAIU. (I should probably try to model that at planck scales, or find references because it is probably done, but it’s a minor point here.) The same goes for cyclical universes (which seems as a more and more remote possibility), models indicates that the cycles will differ and linearity is fundamentally resolvable in a fashion.
Even if linear time is correct I don’t believe its early adoption was essential. But since I don’t live in that mind set it is of course impossible to make certain retrodictions.
For main gist of the article it is of course possible to agree with all of that and come to a different conclusion. This is the only difference I can see, say between PZ’s position and the poster’s.
Personally I read this post and thinks: “Science is here to stay based on its usefulness. (I’m not so sure about religion, though.
> Should we think of Dr. Mengele as a martyr to the scientific spirit?
The national socialist racial theories were pseudoscience, like lyssenkism. Ideology was a motivating force for Mengele, not a constraint.
It would have been both no? In fact, wouldn’t a motivating force, by motivating your work in a particular direction, necessarily constrain you from pursuing other avenues?
But let’s say there’s a scientist who has no ideological constraints whatsoever–isn’t the ban against certain kinds of human experimentation essentially an ideological constraint?
That’s the point of bringing up Mengele. The reason he is hated and despised is because he violated an ideological constraint. From a scientific point of view, plenty of good work can be done on human subjects, and their informed consent really has no bearing whatsoever on the science qua science. So why not do it?
Because we have an ideological constraint heavily mitigating against it. It’s one we probably (?) all agree on, but it isn’t something that arises from within science itself. And I think we all agree that constraint ought to be there.
So, the question is not whether science ought to be constrained, because it is and probably can’t but be. The question is how science should be constrained.
Science is, and always will be, constrained by social norms. Mengele’s work (whose data is highly suspect, as he did not use double blinds or controls anyway) is bad science because it wasn’t constrained by social norms, as are similar eugenic activities in the US, Canada, and Australia (but not, it turns out, the UK).
I do not think this is ideological (although it certainly can be), but it is moral and it is social. The point is to balance social norms (which can be based on nothing more than prejudice) with scientific facts and results. Science will lead social norms, but not too far from where they now are.
We cannot expect science to be done in a manner that is opposite every other human activity. We are social animals and norm followers. So unless you get a sociopath running some project, those who fund science will tend to restrain excesses because they just are the wider community.
But the problem of religion controlling science is that religion doesn’t want certain questions answered as a rule. I once wrote a paper about this.
Re: post 29 in which I refer to Richard Owens. I have no idea who that was. I meant, of course, Richard Owen.
Crap.
No 35:
Religion has often tried to constrain science
I originally took ‘constrain’ to mean pressure to avoid areas of scientific speculation and experiment that call religious dogma into question, ala Copernicus, Galileo and, of course, Darwin.
As a result, I did not see a problem, since I did not believe there were any constraints on the freedom to do science, provided that it was done within an ethical framework. However, I failed to take into account areas, such as stem cell research, where the ethical issues are being hotly contested.
This isn’t clear to me; the comment about eugenics not being constrained by social norms in the UK seems do imply that there are no constraints. Also, didn’t the application of eugenics (sterilisation of those deemed unfit for various reasons) start in the US and continue into the 60s and actually have political and in many cases either social backing or at best disinterest by the general populace?
Not sure about this; Science supplies data and the information is created by those interpreting the data. Not sure how this makes science a leader in forming social norms. Pop/Film stars and sometimes politicians seem to have more influence, leaders of popular movements have the most.
I would guess that science data could be interpreted to say that tatooing isn’t good for the skin but many people do it and society doesn’t seem to mind. We’ve also had some strange things done in the name of social norms; fashions in clothing comes to mind.
This isn’t clear to me; the comment about eugenics not being constrained by social norms in the UK seems do imply that there are no constraints. Also, didn’t the application of eugenics (sterilisation of those deemed unfit for various reasons) start in the US and continue into the 60s and actually have political and in many cases either social backing or at best disinterest by the general populace?
Not sure about this; Science supplies data and the information is created by those interpreting the data. Not sure how this makes science a leader in forming social norms. Pop/Film stars and sometimes politicians seem to have more influence, leaders of popular movements have the most.
I would guess that science data could be interpreted to say that tatooing isn’t good for the skin but many people do it and society doesn’t seem to mind. We’ve also had some strange things done in the name of social norms; fashions in clothing comes to mind.
I meant that the UK never practised the eugenics of the US, Canada and Australia.
Social norms like abortion are led to an extent by the science. Or conservation and global warming prevention by ordinary citizens. But it is not likely that scientific advances will do much more than stretch existing boundaries a little, and it is always open to the ignorant, like the Catholic Church on condoms, to lie.
I am using “ideology” in its non-pejorative sense: “the unifying system of beliefs, attitudes, and values expressed in the superstructure of a culture. The body of thought and ideas that guides a society and perpetuates the status quo . . .”
[original said "of the bourgeoisie," but I don't think that's necessary]
I don’t think the other use of “ideology” is particularly useful since my “moral value” may be your ideology and vice versa.
What does science have to say about abortion, for instance? Well science may make procedures available–make abortion cheap, safe, easy. Make younger and younger fetuses viable. So it changes the landscape of the discussion.
I can’t think of a scientific reason to say that a fetus at one particular point becomes a human being. Science can provide a lot of data: Blastocysts are just a bunch of cells; spontaneous abortions take place in nature at such-and-such a rate. But these facts don’t really resolve the central issue.
Do I believe that considering a sperm a “potential human life” is insane? Sure. Does science tell me that? No.
My point would be that the interaction of social values and ideals and science is complex. Things like suppressing Copernican science may not be a discrete category which we can just condemn wholesale. It may be that such constraint is an example of the sort of practice that always goes on and always will, only this particular application was wrong.
Unless someone can come up with a good way to categorically distinguish between good constraints on science and bad ones? My suspicion is that this is bound always to be disputed territory and that trying to stake out a “society should never constrain or interfere with science” sort of position is really counterproductive.
I’m not too sure how much social norms are lead by science. Feminists were advocating changes in abortion laws before science came along with some finer detailed observations on brain development. It took nearly a century or more for the science of human evolution to really catch up with Abolitionists in the essential idea that all humans, regardless of ethnic or racial group, are essentially equal in mental capabilities.
What science has often been useful in doing is giving those seeking social change a solid emperical grounding on which to build their arguments. Abortion became more acceptable in part because science was able to say “Look, there’s no real possibility of personality or emotion at this stage of fetal development”. The argument was given new weight.
If someone says something that is untrue is it a lie if they are ignorant?
I would call it a lie when someone knowingly states an untruth and claims it to be true.
The RCs position on condoms doesn’t seem particularly helpful, especially given the prevelance of STDs and people having multiple sexual partners, however I suspect that they don’t consider it a lie; unless you know of a case where they have said condoms don’t reduce the spread of STDs.
If someone says something that is untrue is it a lie if they are ignorant?
I would call it a lie when someone knowingly states an untruth and claims it to be true.
The RCs position on condoms doesn’t seem particularly helpful, especially given the prevelance of STDs and people having multiple sexual partners, however I suspect that they don’t consider it a lie; unless you know of a case where they have said condoms don’t reduce the spread of STDs.
I agree.
It seems to me that such a claim has a major problem in who pays.
Whoever pays the piper calls the tune; now I might not play the tune called but then I won’t get paid.
Science cannot divorce itself from the desires of the society (or at least from the paymasters of that society) in which it operates.
The fear of Frankenstein’s Monster is strong and I don’t think that it is unjustified given that scientists are just humans.
As you say, it is how the constraints are decided and policed that is the question, not the need for them
I agree.
It seems to me that such a claim has a major problem in who pays.
Whoever pays the piper calls the tune; now I might not play the tune called but then I won’t get paid.
Science cannot divorce itself from the desires of the society (or at least from the paymasters of that society) in which it operates.
The fear of Frankenstein’s Monster is strong and I don’t think that it is unjustified given that scientists are just humans.
As you say, it is how the constraints are decided and policed that is the question, not the need for them
The Cahtolic Church knows the science – their ignorance is of a different kind. Perhaps I should have said “prejudiced”. They lie about the science they know to discourage the use of condoms to prevent STDs like HIV.
And note that I never said society should not constrain science. Not only is that not desirable, it is not possible. What I said is that religion should not constrain science. This is a fine distinction, I know, but in a secular society religion should not have exceptional influence, and it should not be able to enforce its views on those not of its faith community.
This is slightly off topic, but I always understood the RC church to be anti condom because they hold that sex is for procreation. They also adhere to the idea that faithful monogamous relationships will prevent the spread of STDs, which is true of course, and that spreading the abstinance message will do more long term good in mitigating the effect/spread of STDs and improving the moral well being of society.
They are the largest NGO care provider for those afflicted with HIV/AIDs in Southern Africa, so not all bad.
For a long time; whilst most African goverments had their heads up their arses, they were one of the few groups actually providing health care to AIDs victims and teaching a method of prevention that didn’t include beetroot juice or raping virgins.
No, before anyone makes the claim, they didn’t check if the person was baptised or not before supplying help.
So no, I don’t think that they are lying or ignorant.
They would be lying if they claimed that their only aim was to prevent the spread of STDs, this isn’t the case however as they have more than one aim.
Also it isn’t a monobloc, Bishop Kevin Dowling may be the most upfront in his dissent but he isn’t the only one within the RC hierarchy who thinks the church’s policy on Condoms & AIDs is orthodoxy gone mad and an immoral policy.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/04/10/bishop_in_south_africa_targets_aids/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5032190
—————–
This is actually more on topic than I thought. If a set of believers (not necessarily religious believers but any group with a general comity of ideas) inflicts harm on itself because its ethics/morals are bad for them won’t it die out?
I do agree that religions shouldn’t be able to enforce their ideas on those who don’t agree with them; but surely we have a problem here. If we take believers to be just those who share a common set of beliefs (i.e. Chinese goverment would claim not to be religious) doesn’t this happen all the time; or are we limiting religion to those groups who claim to know The Truth and believe in a Deity?
This is slightly off topic, but I always understood the RC church to be anti condom because they hold that sex is for procreation. They also adhere to the idea that faithful monogamous relationships will prevent the spread of STDs, which is true of course, and that spreading the abstinance message will do more long term good in mitigating the effect/spread of STDs and improving the moral well being of society.
They are the largest NGO care provider for those afflicted with HIV/AIDs in Southern Africa, so not all bad.
For a long time; whilst most African goverments had their heads up their arses, they were one of the few groups actually providing health care to AIDs victims and teaching a method of prevention that didn’t include beetroot juice or raping virgins.
No, before anyone makes the claim, they didn’t check if the person was baptised or not before supplying help.
So no, I don’t think that they are lying or ignorant.
They would be lying if they claimed that their only aim was to prevent the spread of STDs, this isn’t the case however as they have more than one aim.
Also it isn’t a monobloc, Bishop Kevin Dowling may be the most upfront in his dissent but he isn’t the only one within the RC hierarchy who thinks the church’s policy on Condoms & AIDs is orthodoxy gone mad and an immoral policy.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/04/10/bishop_in_south_africa_targets_aids/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5032190
—————–
This is actually more on topic than I thought. If a set of believers (not necessarily religious believers but any group with a general comity of ideas) inflicts harm on itself because its ethics/morals are bad for them won’t it die out?
I do agree that religions shouldn’t be able to enforce their ideas on those who don’t agree with them; but surely we have a problem here. If we take believers to be just those who share a common set of beliefs (i.e. Chinese goverment would claim not to be religious) doesn’t this happen all the time; or are we limiting religion to those groups who claim to know The Truth and believe in a Deity?
Smallpox. Syphilus. Guinea worms. Influenza.
Sickle cell disease? Posted by: Ian h Spedding FCD
Oh; it’s guess the next disease or parasite in the list, well spotted Ian.
Polio next or should it be West Nile fever ?
I thought it was a disease-name variant of M******ton C******t.