Leading Horses to Water
Ancient Greeks began the way of
thinking originally known as natural philosophy but which we now call
science. Science emerged as we know it during the Renaissance, in
an age dominated by fear, superstition, injustice, and brutality.
In other words, pretty much like the present. These musings are
aimed at explaining how science works, and how science can serve even
nonscientists in their efforts to make sense of the world. I can
try to explain things but it’s up to you to decide whether or not you
wish to drink from these waters.
#18 - Thoughts on science and the spiritual life
American Heathen: aired: 04 August 2012
It’s common for some of my believer colleagues to attempt to dismiss my
concerns about the illogical position of being a religious believer and
a scientist at the same time. The main thread of their argument
is that one’s spiritual life is somehow in a different compartment than
one’s life as a scientist. This response actually reinforces
my speculation that in order to be both a scientist and a religious
believer, these two components of your life must be confined completely
in separate, disconnected, impermeable compartments within your brain.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that a scientist can have a spiritual
side, since I recognize that in myself. But I simply can’t ignore
the lessons I’ve gained from being a scientist so that I could embrace
irrationality and science simultaneously, and accept arguments by
authority pertaining to my spiritual life without question. To do
so seems so incredibly inconsistent and troubling to me. My
believer colleagues must somehow be ignoring this obvious conflict
between their professional and spiritual lives. Such cognitive
dissonance seems to imply a sort of schizophrenia I find inconceivable
in an otherwise intelligent, functional human being. The power of
fallacy-dominated rationalization must indeed be strong to hold sway in
the mind of a science professional!
The bible and other sacred texts are not science textbooks, of
course. On that, my believer friends and I certainly agree!
The description of the natural world in these documents is manifestly
in conflict with modern science unless you choose to view the biblical
narrative not as literal truth but as allegory or ancient mythology
(which it is). For someone to see the evident clash between
biblical stories and modern science as somehow compatible logically
leads me to question that person’s ability to think clearly. If
you decline to accept the literal truth of some parts of the bible, I
think this naturally calls the rest of the bible into question, as
well. Fundamentalist believers are at least consistent, whereas
believer moderates who pick and choose those parts of their “sacred”
documents that they see as convenient for them are engaging in obvious
self-deception.
It’s not my place as a physical scientist to speculate on why people
would choose to live with this clear contradiction between two
important components in their lives. The eloquent astrophysicist
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson has commented about believers among science
professionals. He points out that as we move up the ladder of
scientific expertise from the “general public,” to practicing
scientists, and finally to the members of the prestigious National
Academy of Sciences, the percentage of religious believers declines
precipitously. But as Dr. Tyson says
I want to put on the table, not why 85%
of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want
to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t.
A most pertinent question, that! I, too, want an answer to that one!
The world of science is not for everyone, but everyone should be able
to understand the important distinction between ideas backed up by
scientific evidence versus those supported only exceedingly tenuously
by ancient stories of dubious lineage and by faith in a total absence
of evidence. The late, great Dr. Carl Sagan said
If some good evidence for life after
death were announced, I'd be eager to examine it; but it would have to
be real scientific data, not mere anecdote. As with the face on
Mars and alien abductions, better the hard truth, I say, than the
comforting fantasy.
It’s the apparently unshakeable commitment to illogic and irrationality
among otherwise intelligent friends and colleagues that concerns
me. I have no wish to deny them their right to their beliefs, but
I’d like to think that an honest, open-minded person must
see the inherent dangers in embracing a delusionary, irrational
worldview that sanctions misogyny, slavery, violence in the name of
advancing the faith, ill-treatment of homosexuals, and so on. The
leaders of many of these faiths presently are seeking to replace the
teaching of evolution in public schools with the religious dogma of
creationism.. Can my friends not see how religion and science are
in an epic battle for the minds of our children (and, hence, our
future)? Apparently not.
Just how do my believer colleagues reconcile their faith in a doctrine
based on the content of a “sacred” document laced with contradictions
and a total absence of modern-day, repeatable evidence? This must
involve a mental juggling act that has to be seriously perturbing their
inner bullshit detectors, whether they want to admit it or not!
Just because it’s spiritual, doesn’t mean we can safely dispense with a
bullshit detector!
Dr. Sagan wrote in his book The Demon-Haunted World, before the turn of the millennium in the year 2000:
I worry that, especially as the
Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year
by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and
attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or
national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during
challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our
diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up
around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the
controls.
I feel the same concerns because those old habits of thought lead to
ignorance, fear, and suffering. I believe that scientists should
be at the forefront of those working to prevent us from going down that
path, not participating in irrational, dangerously violent,
mythological nonsense.
Science
is not a religion but rather a tool for those who wish to think for
themselves about the natural world. Its primary characteristic is
its willingness to entertain questions from those who wish to obtain
believable answers.