Science as the new Evangelism?

[dragon wench]

I know this topic has come up frequently here, but I found the below article quite interesting....


A Free-for-all on Science and Religion

By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: November 21, 2006

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.

Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.

Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.

She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

She displayed a picture taken by the Cassini spacecraft of Saturn and its glowing rings eclipsing the Sun, revealing in the shadow a barely noticeable speck called Earth.

There has been no shortage of conferences in recent years, commonly organized by the Templeton Foundation, seeking to smooth over the differences between science and religion and ending in a metaphysical draw. Sponsored instead by the Science Network, an educational organization based in California, and underwritten by a San Diego investor, Robert Zeps (who acknowledged his role as a kind of “anti-Templeton”), the La Jolla meeting, “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival,” rapidly escalated into an invigorating intellectual free-for-all. (Unedited video of the proceedings will be posted on the Web at tsntv.org.)

A presentation by Joan Roughgarden, a Stanford University biologist, on using biblical metaphor to ease her fellow Christians into accepting evolution (a mutation is “a mustard seed of DNA”) was dismissed by Dr. Dawkins as “bad poetry,” while his own take-no-prisoners approach (religious education is “brainwashing” and “child abuse”) was condemned by the anthropologist Melvin J. Konner, who said he had “not a flicker” of religious faith, as simplistic and uninformed.

After enduring two days of talks in which the Templeton Foundation came under the gun as smudging the line between science and faith, Charles L. Harper Jr., its senior vice president, lashed back, denouncing what he called “pop conflict books” like Dr. Dawkins’s “God Delusion,” as “commercialized ideological scientism” — promoting for profit the philosophy that science has a monopoly on truth.

That brought an angry rejoinder from Richard P. Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, who said his own book, “Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine,” was written to counter “garbage research” financed by Templeton on, for example, the healing effects of prayer.

With atheists and agnostics outnumbering the faithful (a few believing scientists, like Francis S. Collins, author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” were invited but could not attend), one speaker after another called on their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief. “The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty,” said Sam Harris, a doctoral student in neuroscience and the author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

“Every religion is making claims about the way the world is,” he said. “These are claims about the divine origin of certain books, about the virgin birth of certain people, about the survival of the human personality after death. These claims purport to be about reality.”

By shying away from questioning people’s deeply felt beliefs, even the skeptics, Mr. Harris said, are providing safe harbor for ideas that are at best mistaken and at worst dangerous. “I don’t know how many more engineers and architects need to fly planes into our buildings before we realize that this is not merely a matter of lack of education or economic despair,” he said.

Dr. Weinberg, who famously wrote toward the end of his 1977 book on cosmology, “The First Three Minutes,” that “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” went a step further: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

With a rough consensus that the grand stories of evolution by natural selection and the blossoming of the universe from the Big Bang are losing out in the intellectual marketplace, most of the discussion came down to strategy. How can science fight back without appearing to be just one more ideology?




continued

[dragon wench]

“There are six billion people in the world,” said Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic priest. “If we think that we are going to persuade them to live a rational life based on scientific knowledge, we are not only dreaming — it is like believing in the fairy godmother.”

“People need to find meaning and purpose in life,” he said. “I don’t think we want to take that away from them.”

Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University known for his staunch opposition to teaching creationism, found himself in the unfamiliar role of playing the moderate. “I think we need to respect people’s philosophical notions unless those notions are wrong,” he said.

“The Earth isn’t 6,000 years old,” he said. “The Kennewick man was not a Umatilla Indian.” But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.”

That was just the kind of accommodating attitude that drove Dr. Dawkins up the wall. “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”

By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.”

“With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. “I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side,” he said, “and that you generate more fear and hatred of science.”

Dr. Tyson put it more gently. “Persuasion isn’t always ‘Here are the facts — you’re an idiot or you are not,’ ” he said. “I worry that your methods” — he turned toward Dr. Dawkins — “how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence.”

Chastened for a millisecond, Dr. Dawkins replied, “I gratefully accept the rebuke.”

In the end it was Dr. Tyson’s celebration of discovery that stole the show. Scientists may scoff at people who fall back on explanations involving an intelligent designer, he said, but history shows that “the most brilliant people who ever walked this earth were doing the same thing.” When Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” failed to account for the stability of the solar system — why the planets tugging at one another’s orbits have not collapsed into the Sun — Newton proposed that propping up the mathematical mobile was “an intelligent and powerful being.”

It was left to Pierre Simon Laplace, a century later, to take the next step. Hautily telling Napoleon that he had no need for the God hypothesis, Laplace extended Newton’s mathematics and opened the way to a purely physical theory.

“What concerns me now is that even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops — it just stops,” Dr. Tyson said. “You’re no good anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says: ‘That’s a really cool problem. I want to solve it.’ ”

“Science is a philosophy of discovery; intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance,” he said. “Something fundamental is going on in people’s minds when they confront things they don’t understand.”

He told of a time, more than a millennium ago, when Baghdad reigned as the intellectual center of the world, a history fossilized in the night sky. The names of the constellations are Greek and Roman, Dr. Tyson said, but two-thirds of the stars have Arabic names. The words “algebra” and “algorithm” are Arabic.

But sometime around 1100, a dark age descended. Mathematics became seen as the work of the devil, as Dr. Tyson put it. “Revelation replaced investigation,” he said, and the intellectual foundation collapsed.

He did not have to say so, but the implication was that maybe a century, maybe a millennium from now, the names of new planets, stars and galaxies might be Chinese. Or there may be no one to name them at all.

Before he left to fly back home to Austin, Dr. Weinberg seemed to soften for a moment, describing religion a bit fondly as a crazy old aunt.

“She tells lies, and she stirs up all sorts of mischief and she’s getting on, and she may not have that much life left in her, but she was beautiful once,” he lamented. “When she’s gone, we may miss her.”

Dr. Dawkins wasn’t buying it. “I won't miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”

[Xandax]

Well- this quote

Quote:

That was just the kind of accommodating attitude that drove Dr. Dawkins up the wall. “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”

pretty much covers my point of view.

I grow more and more tired and ... well annoyed ... with religion the more I see people using it to justify whatever they find wrong in the world, the more I see people turn to it for "explanations" or the more I see it forced upon others.
In my view religion is the single most dangerous invention mankind has ever made, as it removes responsibilities from humankind and grants the "freedom" to do what ever they so choose in the name of religion - wars and terrorism with foundation in religious excuses are obvious examples, whether or not we talk recent or historical events.

[dragon wench]

I agree that much evil has been spawned and justified in the name of religion. The situation in the Middle East is an obvious current example, but I also think to the conflict that raged for so many years in Northern Ireland... or much further back, the Salem Witchcraft trials, or the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition....
And those are only a small handful of examples.

My stance is a bit complicated (well, okay... "wishy washy" ), I suppose. I have always 'believed' in the Darwinian concept of evolution, much as I have always 'believed' in the notion of The Big Bang.
What is deeply unfortunate, in my view, is that there is such complete lack of tolerance in both camps, which leads to serious animosity and polarization.
I am comfortably convinced of scientific proofs while simultaneously believing in the sense of an undefined "energy" that permeates the Universe. But, I do not, and never will, believe in any sort of biblical creation story. I'm not a Christian, and my beliefs are probably best described as being somewhat Daoist.

However, the problem is that so much is at stake. In my view it is *extremely* dangerous to teach children that creationism, or "intelligent design" merit unquestioning acceptance or that they have a place alongside evolution.


ugh..

[Vicsun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dragon wench I agree that much evil has been spawned and justified in the name of religion. The situation in the Middle East is an obvious current example, but I also think to the conflict that raged for so many years in Northern Ireland... or much further back, the Salem Witchcraft trials, or the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition.... And those are only a small handful of examples.

I want to point out all those examples are four parts politics to one part religion. Lets get our evils in order, here

[dragon wench]

Vicsun,
I suppose I should have mentioned that, but it seemed apparent to me. As far as I'm concerned anything that is ostensibly driven by religion, or where religion plays a major role, is inextricably political as well.
In all of the cases I cited politics and religion are closely intertwined, in my view anyway.

[Magrus]

I have my own problems with blind faith and organized religion, which I've gone into multiple times here. However, I have to say far too many people put too much faith in science and books as well. Technically speaking, after getting that blonde tech girl to steal my medical file in the hospital years ago and reading it's contents, I defy medical science simply by breathing and existing. I find science and it's followers to be flawed as well.

[Xandax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus I have my own problems with blind faith and organized religion, which I've gone into multiple times here. However, I have to say far too many people put too much faith in science and books as well. Technically speaking, after getting that blonde tech girl to steal my medical file in the hospital years ago and reading it's contents, I defy medical science simply by breathing and existing. I find science and it's followers to be flawed as well.

Difference is that "true" followers of science can and will change their perception in view of testing and evidence. Thus you can't really assign the two types of world view to the same boxes, because they are inheritable different.

[Moonbiter]

Xan wrote:

Quote:

Difference is that "true" followers of science can and will change their perception in view of testing and evidence. Thus you can't really assign the two types of world view to the same boxes, because they are inheritable different.

Hmmmm, is there any "true" followers of science? As far as I've learned, the followers of "science" tend to be the people most likely to cause problems for the rest of the world.

Nowadays it's very fashionable to diss religion, and I completely agree. Organized religion has done more damage than good. However, I got deeply involved in a similar discussion here when I first peeked in, and I maintain my point of view: Religion Kills, Faith Heals. Having faith in Science is not a bad thing, worshipping it is not on! They have messed up too many times for that..

[Silur]

@Vicsun: In my view, religion and politics are just different sides of the same coin. Religion exercises power over you through emotional manipulation while politics does the same with rationalisations and manipulation of statistics.

Personally I'm with Dawkins on this one, but I doubt his straightforward approach is the most effective. The human brain seems to be pretty crappy at handling reason and all too apt to soak up fairy tales (and I need only look at myself to see this tendency) that a more subversive approach may be more successful. Unfortunately, it will also go against the intellectual honesty that Sam Harris promotes, and who's view I share in this respect.

[Kipi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonbiter Nowadays it's very fashionable to diss religion, and I completely agree. Organized religion has done more damage than good. However, I got deeply involved in a similar discussion here when I first peeked in, and I maintain my point of view: Religion Kills, Faith Heals. Having faith in Science is not a bad thing, worshipping it is not on! They have messed up too many times for that..

This one sums my opinion very well. Faith in general is good thing, as it tends to make us stronger, allow us to endure better from different kind of things and in some cases even keep us alive. But what happens when we actually start worship something? We dismiss everyhing as false which doesn't support our believes. If we begin to worship science, there would be no room for spiritual believes and faith. And time has showed us that human kind does need that kind of faith too.

In general, I'm against any kind of "worshipping", since as stated here already, worshipping and religion tends to become a reason to do something otherwise ot acceptable. There is and will not be any difference between religions and science in this matter.

[Xandax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kipi This one sums my opinion very well. Faith in general is good thing, as it tends to make us stronger, allow us to endure better from different kind of things and in some cases even keep us alive. But what happens when we actually start worship something? We dismiss everyhing as false which doesn't support our believes. If we begin to worship science, there would be no room for spiritual believes and faith. And time has showed us that human kind does need that kind of faith too. In general, I'm against any kind of "worshipping", since as stated here already, worshipping and religion tends to become a reason to do something otherwise ot acceptable. There is and will not be any difference between religions and science in this matter.

I dissagree.
Firstly - what has shown us that humanity needs spiritual believes and faith?
Secondly - as I see it you can not "worship" science, as "science" is an ever changing thing. Science is (simplified) just the discipline to seek out answers about what causes which effects and seek explanations for such things. Science needs to undergo strict rules before things stated in the "name of science" is actually ... well stated and accepted in science. Hypothesis can be stated, but they are generally accepted only as such, and thus not as factual in light of evidence.
None of the "faiths" can claim this, and this is one major point where the two areas of life conflict with each other, and why you can't label them as similar.
Science is build on what is currently known as factual, it can change if these facts changes. Science needs to be proven to be called science.
Faith is not inherit in any of these things, thus worship is not either, which indicate an unquestionable acceptance which again goes against the core concept of science.

I do not see faith/worship of some unknown entities either read about in a book (or similar) as being comparable with science and I can't see the words can even be put together - other then as an (falsely) attempt to try and pin science with religious aspects.

[Malta Soron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax Secondly - as I see it you can not "worship" science, as "science" is an ever changing thing. Science is (simplified) just the discipline to seek out answers about what causes which effects and seek explanations for such things. Science needs to undergo strict rules before things stated in the "name of science" is actually ... well stated and accepted in science. Hypothesis can be stated, but they are generally accepted only as such, and thus not as factual in light of evidence.

That's the point: the masses regard science as being infallible and base they're whole world view on it. That's also why everybody thinks evolution is a proven, solid fact.
Science isn't a religion by itself, but people make it into one.

[Chanak]

Worship science?

Science is a tool with which we seek to learn more about the universe. A hammer is a tool with which we seek to sink a nail into lumber. Science serves as a vehicle for human inquisitiveness; a hammer serves as a vehicle to install a nail without injuring the human body. Simplified, I know, but both share something in common: they are tools humans use. Is the tool greater than its creator? I think not.

We constantly improve upon the body of scientific knowledge accumulated over the course of many human lifetimes. As I was a carpenter by trade for a number of years, I can inform you that the industry is constantly improving the hammer. Yes, in many cases the simple hammer has been made obsolete by the pneumatic nail gun. However, the simple hammer still has its uses, especially in cases when you are working on an undeveloped site that has no power supply to run the compressors needed to operate your nail guns. Yes, one could use nail guns powered by compressed gas cartidges, but those are rather expensive compared to a $15 hammer that pays for itself time and time again. However, I digress.

Worship implies that the object of worship is greater than the worshiper. What we create isn't greater than ourselves...rather, it is simply an expression of our brains and our species. I fail to see the logic behind worshiping anything, let alone something as fallible and flawed as we ourselves are.

[fable]

This piece expresses my perspective, and also explains why I haven't previously posted in this thread.