Science and Religion - A Response to the New Atheism

Column: Science and religion aren't friends USA TODAY OPINION On Religion Faith. Religion. Spirituality. Meaning. In our ever-shrinking world, the tentacles of religion touch everything from governmental policy to individual morality to our basic social constructs. It affects the lives of people of great faith — or no faith at all. This series of weekly columns — launched in 2005 — seeks to illuminate the national conversation. By Jerry A. Coyne Religion in America is on the defensive. Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America's fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief. But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue. As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. 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. Irreconcilable "But surely," you might argue, "science and religion must be compatible. After all, some scientists are religious." One is Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. But the existence of religious scientists, or religious people who accept science, doesn't prove that the two areas are compatible. It shows only that people can hold two conflicting notions in their heads at the same time. If that meant compatibility, we could make a good case, based on the commonness of marital infidelity, that monogamy and adultery are perfectly compatible. No, the incompatibility between science and faith is more fundamental: Their ways of understanding the universe are irreconcilable. 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?" I can think of dozens of potential observations, for instance — one is a billion-year-old ape fossil — that would convince me that evolution didn't happen. Physicist Richard Feynman observed that the methods of science help us distinguish real truth from what we only want to be true: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Science can, of course, be wrong. Continental drift, for example, was laughed off for years. But in the end the method is justified by its success. Without science, we'd all live short, miserable and diseaseridden lives, without the amenities of medicine or technology. As Stephen Hawking proclaimed, science wins because it works. Does religion work? It brings some of us solace, impels some to do good (and others to fly planes into buildings), and buttresses the same moral truths embraced by atheists, but does it help us better understand our world or our universe? Hardly. Note that almost all religions make specific claims about the world involving matters such as the existence of miracles, answered prayers wonderworking saints and divine cures, virgin births, annunciations and resurrections. These factual claims, whose truth is a bedrock of belief, bring religion within the realm of scientific study. But rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma and authority. Hebrews 11:1 states, with complete accuracy, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Indeed, a doubting-Thomas demand for evidence is often considered rude. And this leads to the biggest problem with religious "truth": There's no way of knowing whether it's true. I've never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can't rationalize as consistent with a loving God. It's the ultimate way of fooling yourself. But how can you be sure you're right if you can't tell whether you're wrong? The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different faiths holding incompatible "truths" about the world. Many Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as savior, you'll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God's son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there's no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity's miserable history of religious warfare and persecution. In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith, then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it's a vice. But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists. While only 6% of Americans are atheists or agnostics, the figure for American scientists is 64%, according to Rice professor Elaine Howard Ecklund's book, Science vs. Religion. Further proof: Among countries of the world, there is a strong negative relationship between their religiosity and their acceptance of evolution. Countries like Denmark and Sweden, with low belief in God, have high acceptance of evolution, while religious countries are evolution-intolerant. Out of 34 countries surveyed in a study published in Science magazine, the U.S., among the most religious, is at the bottom in accepting Darwinism: We're No. 33, with only Turkey below us. Finally, in a 2006 Time poll a staggering 64% of Americans declared that if science disproved one of their religious beliefs, they'd reject that science in favor of their faith. 'Venerable superstition' In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns. Yet we don't talk about reconciling science with leprechauns. We worry about religion simply because it's the most venerable superstition — and the most politically and financially powerful. Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions. And any progress — not just scientific progress — is easier when we're not yoked to religious dogma. Of course, using reason and evidence won't magically make us all agree, but how much clearer our spectacles would be without the fog of superstition! Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. His latest book is Why Evolution is True, and his website is www.whyevolutionistrue.com. My son, Daniel, sent me this USA TODAY column and asked for my analysis, which I have provided below. – Stephen H. Farra, PhD, LP, Director, Psychology Program, Columbia International University. Daniel, Professor Coyne is correct that a lot of mindless superstition gets woven into some forms of religion. But, e phati all , that does ot ea that e a just thro out all forms of religious faith. What Coyne puts forward is a rather t pi al for of atheisti aterialis , o i g out of a old e piri is that ost s ie tists a d u i ersities ha e lo g since discarded. The old empiricism said that to a hie e ertai t , a d fi all to o sider a thi g real , e ust be able to directly see and dire tl easure it. O l thi gs a e dire tl see a d easured, so e e d up li i g i a orld of thi gs. The i e ita le result is a atheisti aterialis . The new empiricism (which Coyne is either ignorant of, or completely ignores) is built on the concept of the o stru t – the aria le that e a ot e a le to dire tl , ph si all see , ut we know is real, because we can reliably and validly measure its effects, and make accurate predictions from its easured le els. The e e piri is has ee operati e i leadi g s ie tifi ir les a d u i ersities, si e the earl 97 s. E a ples of o stru ts that e a ot dire tl see, ut e a dire tl measure in reliable and valid ways would be: depression and general aptitude/intelligence. No one a put a depressio o a ta le or i to a test tu e a d see a d easure it dire tl . That does not ea it does ot e ist! We a easure the effe ts of depressio i relia le a d alid a s, a d e a ake a urate predi tio s ased o le els of depressio o i g off our assess e t i stru e ts. The same can be said for general aptitude and general intelligence. And, I went to a 500-participant conference at Harvard Medical School, where the MD and PhD presenters showed through lots of data points, charts, and graphs that the same can be said for the beneficial po er of perso al faith , regular orship , a d shared pra er. We a easure the ph si al a d e tal health benefits of these constructs in reliable and valid ways, and we can make accurate predictions coming off our measurements of these constructs. All of which is to say: Coyne has given us a rather childish atheisti ra t, o i g off a old odel of s ie e that ost u i ersities o lo ger adhere to. Co e’s arti le is reall a state e t of his faith i his religio , “ ie tis – based in a model of science that has long been considered outdated and self-contradictory. Here are so e other su sta ti e pro le s ith Co e’s argu e t: (1) Professor Coyne lets us know right way (in his first full paragraph) where he stands: recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct fro the lu p of jell i our head. If that were true, any logical person would have to argue that hat e all the rai produces and frequently changes hat e all the i d , but it could never be the other way around – the mind changing the brain. This is one of several areas where Coyne is not up on his research. For the last 14 years, Baxter, Schwartz, and the rest of the team working out of the UCLA brain imaging center have said that through before-and-after P. E. T. scans we now have hard, physical evidence that the i d a ha ge the rai (their words, 1996 onward). By this they ea our i d our i te tio al o s ious ess a ha ge ph si all alter, short term and long term) the structure and functioning of the 85-100 billion neurons and 900 billion glia cells we call our rai . Directly observable and measurable changes in the functioning of the caudate nucleus, and in axon growth and neural networking (particularly) are changed (altered, short term and long term) by conscious focus, intentional purpose, chosen context, and level of motivation. If our brain and our mind were simply one, and together constituted just o e thi g like every other reality i Co e’s definition of the universe), then what exactly allows us to look at things (including the brain), have feelings about things, examine and think about things, and organize and change things? Coyne does not deal with the issue of human consciousness in a meaningful way. And, that just refers to basic consciousness (awareness). Any honest functional analysis also must acknowledge our rather obvious human capacity to be conscious of our consciousness (self/soul awareness). This is transcendent consciousness, meta-thinking, the person above the personality, the basis of our spirituality. This yet-higher level of functioning was evident every time one of my clients would come to my office and say, I’ e re ie ed life, a d it’s lear that I ha e an anger-management problem , or, I feel my life lacks meaning , a d si erel ask for help. Atheisti aterialists, like Co e, a ot account for even basic consciousness, let alone the fact that we are conscious of our consciousness, and will often try to make constructive changes in our psychological dimension, when things go wrong at that level. (2) At two different places in his column, Coyne asserts that science will lead us to real truth. No real scientist claims that. The sciences attempt to tell us hat is pro a le a d useful, ut real truth is al a s e o d the s ope of the s ie es. What e all the s ie es are ere paradig s (intellectual and procedural models) that attempt to give us probable and useful information – from a given value system and a point-of- ie . “ ie tists do ’t des ri e realit , a d the a ’t e er deli er to us real truth. Tho as Kuh settled this a k i 1961-1962 when he wrote his enormously influential little book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Thomas Kuhn taught at Harvard, UC Berkele , a d the Pri eto , ot lo g after Al ert Ei stei ’s te ure at Princeton. Kuhn was originally trained from the bachelors to the doctoral level at Harvard in Mathematics and Physics. His little book rocked our world. For any thinking man or woman, his cogent, well-referenced arguments put an end to the aï e realis – the simplistic and silly Scientism – Coyne is pumping out in his USA TODAY article. (3 Those ho elie e i Co e’s ra d of “ ie tis tell us that their s ie e ill lead to a orld where there will be fewer disagreements, people will solve their differences in laboratories instead of battlefields, and that they and their scientific methods will usher in a blessed new world of Scientific Socialism – here e er o e’s eeds ill e et. “ ie e ill e our “a ior is the esse e of their argument. Such thinking and writing ignores almost the entire history of the 20 th Century. Science will be our Savior was a common theme in the early 1900s, and is prominently featured in the Humanist Manifesto (1933), signed (among others) by educator and philosopher John Dewey of Columbia U i ersit NYC . He as k o as the Father of Progressi e Edu atio . The progressi es ha e followed this line of thinki g e er si e. You ould thi k the horrors of the tre hes a d s ie egone- ad rapid-fire machine guns and mustard gas of WWI would be enough to back the progressives off this li d faith i s ie e. No so. Yet, he people realized that WWI ould ot e the ar to e d all ars , ut rather as just a prelude to the greater ho ors of WWII -- the brutal prisons and gas chambers and crematoriums of Buchenwald, Dachau, and Auschwitz, followed shortly by the everpresent possibility of nuclear annihilation for all people everywhere – most of Western culture correctly turned its back on the kind of naïve, utopian thinking that Coyne is pumping out here in his USA TODAY article. Thinking men and women realized that Science will not be our Savior, but more likely will be become our Frankenstein (our own creation that will eventually destroys us). Coyne suggests that the Holocaust should keep us from ultimate faith in God. Actually, the complete opposite is true. It was not those who Coyne mocks (those ho elie ed i the God of A raha a d/or Jesus Christ ho reated the o e tratio a ps of WWII. It as Hitler a d his he h e ho follo ed Nietzs he’s a al sis: si e God is dead there is the need for the emergence of the Übermensch, the Superman or Overman, who is to replace God. It was this mindset and value system that brought forth much of the intense evil of the Third Reich. While some weak German religious leaders were complicit in Nazi actions, most directly it was German scientists – architects, engineers, chemists, physicians, political and military scientists – who built and operated Buchenwald, Dachau, and Auschwitz. The Holocaust should keep us from ultimate faith in Science. To keep Science from turning bad, world cultures desperately need the good and solid values that have for centuries been housed in the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is where we find the people that Coyne specifically likes to o k those ho elie e i the God of A raha a d Jesus Christ . The original a d offi ial a e for Hitler’s Nazi part as the Natio al “o ialist Ger a Workers’ Part . Most of those involved in anything more than an entry level position in the Party abandoned belief in God for belief in Science and National Socialism. Hitler and his National Socialists killed six million Jews. They also killed all the handicapped/disabled people and all the disrupti e people they could find. During the entire reign of terror of Stalin and his newly formed USSR, Stalin and his leadership were declared atheists who imprisoned or slaughtered everyone who did not go along with their refor s a d purges ost historia s esti ate et ee a d million dead). In the Christian West, we called them godless Communists. They said they were just following the principles of “ ie tifi “o ialis (the specific term used by Marx and Engels to describe their whole program). The same is true of Moa and his cultural warriors in China. Historians estimate another 10 to 20 million dead and missi g fro Moa’s ra d of Atheis a d Scientific Socialism. To these numbers you can add the 2 million dead at the hands of Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Viet Kong in Vietnam. The truth about Scientific Socialism is this: more people lost their lives in the name of Scientific Socialism in the 20th Century alone – than in all the specifically religious wars of human history! The fact that Coyne wants us to abandon all forms of Judeo-Christian faith, and put our ultimate faith in Science is complete nonsense – some of the most potentially destructive nonsense available in print. (4) Despite what Coyne says, the world desperately needs leaders who are well versed and believe deeply in the Judeo-Christian values of redeeming love, human dignity, personal worth, and moral accountability. Of course, it also helps their ability to lead effectively if they are well versed in the prag ati ethods e k o as s ie e. To Blair a effe ti e a d arti ulate British Pri e Minister, for a long time) is a good example of someone who often proclaims that we need national leaders who are deeply trained in both religious faith and science. The two belief systems, religious faith/values and observational/experimental science are only incompatible in the minds of those who arrogantly and foolishly hold onto the outdated old empiricism – Positi is , producing the “ ie tis e’ e ee dis ussi g – a perso alized defi itio of s ie e , held up as a religio . (5) Coyne is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. Ma e that’s part of the pro le . E olutio is ot a e peri e tal s ie e – the content of this field is nearly all retrospective speculation. In a real-time, observable, and measurable way, evolutionists cannot produce what they claim (organism-initiated species change). Evolutionists are story tellers, trying to use the language of the sciences, attempting to piggyback on the prestige of the experimental sciences, while usi g ere s raps of evidence (natural adaptations at the micro-level, carefully selected and aligned fossils, ground and rock layers) to weave together loose anecdotal accounts and grandiose speculations. If Coyne were a true experimental scientist, he might not be so prone to sweeping over-generalizations, a d repeated slash a d ur rhetorical tactics. One final thought, Daniel. Christianity (of all the major religious systems) is directly grounded in the geographical, physical, social, and political realities of history. It is directly grounded in the messy and brutal historical realities of the first century. In the New Testament there are detailed references to famous teachers and rulers (and their actions), there are detailed references to towns, cities, and the physical features of geography – most of which have been independently confirmed by other sources, and by modern archeological digs. So, it is safe and correct to say that much of the content of the New Testament has been independently verified. In our lives, there will always be plenty of room for faith in accepting and living out Christianity, but it is not a e pt -headed mind trip , a ki d of anti- i telle tual li d elie is as Co e tries to i pl 11:1). Rather, as the Apostle John put it in I John 1: his badly out-of-context mention of Hebrews That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us ... (I John 1:1-3, NIV) Notice in the verses from I John all the emphasis on what is directly touched, seen, and heard. Of all the classic religious faith systems, Christianity is the most empirical and reasonable. Further: individually, and as a people-group, we cannot live very well without its daily guidance and comfort, hope of eternal salvation, social support, and moral values. All of which to say – we need, our culture needs biblical Christianity. We should acknowledge its central value in our lives, and not take a bunch of heap shots at it, like Coyne does in his article. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Daniel, I hope this analysis is useful to you, and others, for some time to come. Love, Dad ><//>