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.
#30 - Science and Religion - Revisited
American Heathen: aired: 02 March 2013
I’ve discussed the relationship between science and religion in past essays (here and here and here and here),
but I have another perspective on this to share that’s new to me, at
least. Science is based on evidence and logic, religion is based
on belief in supernatural entities – in the absence of evidence other than “sacred” documents, which are no better than hearsay.
However nonsensical their position might be, fundamentalists who accept
the literal truth of everything within their “sacred” scriptures have
at least taken a logical position that if these texts are literally the
words of their deity, then we mere humans are required to live by every
jot and tittle therein. This means a whole host of immoral deeds
aren’t only authorized, they’re mandatory for believers: genocide
for unbelievers, incest, rape, misogyny, murder, slavery, human
sacrifice, bigotry, and so on. Although we modern,
first-world societies evidently have rejected these behaviors (for the
most part) as immoral, large groups of people among us in the USA have
embraced christian fundamentalism, as well as the tactic of pushing
their religious morality on everyone. Their sacred book commands
them to seek dominion over everyone in the world and to commit what we
would consider immoral acts.
Many of my “moderate” believer friends, on the other hand, assure me
that their belief is the true version of christianity. This
means, of course, they evidently have the god-like power literally to
define what “true christianity” really is, and it always just happens
to validate their cherry-picking. Furthermore, they clearly deny the literal truth of various parts of their bible, choosing to see the endorsement therein of immoral deeds, contradictions, and late-Bronze Age mythology about the natural world
as something to be swept under the rug. These moderates believe
in an ancient Earth, not a 6000-year old version. They accept the
validity of evolution as an explanation for how species came about and
the disappearance of older species for which evidence can be found in
the fossil record. They’re just fine with seeing storms and
volcanoes and asteroids/comets as natural hazards, not the direct
result of supernatural intervention by an angry deity. Despite
accepting a scientific understanding as the only valid
way for understanding our natural world, they cling stubbornly to
religious beliefs for reasons of their own that simply can’t be
rational.
I often get a response from moderate believers that not everything in
life is rational. Fine. I certainly have never disputed
that. But if you accept science as the way to discern truth from
falsehood with regard to the natural
world, it would seem appropriate to assume that you accept logic and
evidence as a valid way to draw conclusions about issues in at least some non-scientific aspects of your life as well.
For instance, the topic of “History” is not identical to science, but
it’s pretty obvious that historians proceed by a process quite similar
to the scientific method. Logic and evidence do have an important
role play a role in writing history. And honest historians don’t
lay claim to any absolute truths, just as scientists don’t. Only
provisional interpretations of the evidence.
The arts aren’t bound to evidence and logic – rather, they allow human
beings to express themselves on an emotional level. There’s no
need to impose science on art, although science may contribute
technologies that permit such self-expression in new ways.
Morality is a fascinating
topic of human thought, and one of great concern since it governs our
interactions with other people. Is it rational or
irrational? There’s an emerging group of scientists who believe
there are logical, natural processes that operate to create what people
mostly agree to be a “code” for moral behavior. Clearly, not
everyone agrees on a single version of what defines moral behavior, but
some christians in the USA (and some muslims in the Middle East) are
particularly eager to impose their version of morality on everyone.
In my world, that’s immoral behavior! Religious moral codes are
supposedly drawn from the content of the ‘sacred’ texts that underwrite
those religions. If you believe (without evidence, of course) in
the literal truth of every word in those texts, then based on your
faith, it’s actually rational to do whatever those scriptures command, despite any current version of morality that negates those commands!
But if you’re not a fundamentalist, then you’ve already admitted that the bible is not the authoritative source for human morality,
whether or not you even recognize it! Your choice is not to be a
misogynist, or a slave-holder, or a murderer, or a rapist, or a bigot,
or a child-abuser, etc. Thus, you’re disobeying mandates within
your religion’s “sacred” text that’s supposed to be the cornerstone for
your morality! Surely you must have an explanation
for your moral choices that’s based on some sort of logic and evidence,
rather than justifying it completely illogically, with no
evidence. When deciding what is moral behavior on some basis
other than scriptures, is it acceptable to have no justification for
your decisions? Should logic and evidence be considered
completely irrelevant in making critical life choices? I think
not.
The problem with belief in an absolute, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity is that such a deity can’t be all those things at once. Moreover, religions based on absolutes are fragile,
coming completely unraveled if you don’t accept everything they
say. If you accept the value of logic and evidence in science,
why should logic and evidence be abandoned when they threaten to shake
your cherished irrational beliefs? If you embrace what science
has to offer, should the methods of science be avoided when they point
toward the absence of any reason for belief in a supernatural
diety? To do so is an error in logic. You can’t embrace science and religion without embracing a contradiction – contradictions are unacceptable in logic/science but apparently quite acceptable
in religion. The choice, as always, is yours. But
non-fundamentalist believers can’t offer any acceptable logic for why
they’ve rejected logic in their spiritual life. Basing important
choices on faith is inherently a dangerous thing to do, and definitely
is not a reasonable thing to do.
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.