Tête-à-Tête-Tête

I don’t know exactly why I wasn’t invited to the Salk Institute forum on science & religion, or asked to participate in the TSN special, Beyond Belief. Maybe because I’m not [mockingly] famous enough. Or maybe because I didn’t hang around for my PhD (or my BS, for that matter). Whatever the reason, the world missed the chance to hear my wisdom on the subject, and Dawkins, Harris & co missed the chance to get my constructive criticism. But, hey - I’m all about second chances. So, Richard, Steven, Sam, Daniel, come on & hear a thing or two.

I haven’t read any of the spate of books that have come out lately from these scientist types trying to lay religion to rest. I’ve read excerpts & listened intently to their speeches. And, I got to say, they make their points well. Richard Dawkins has an acerbic wit (too hackneyed) flair for poignant sarcasm (too pretentious) …. y’all know what I mean… and he can really let the air out of any attempt at keeping a reverent attitude toward the religious. Sam Harris has an amazing talent for addressing a key point succintly and convincingly. Daniel Dennett has a brilliantly analytic mind and a refreshing respect for the complexity of the subject matter he discusses. Steven Weinberg, well,… you just have to love his humanity.

And they are all very correct about certain of the things they say, while - in my opinion - hitting mostly the wrong conclusions.

It’s difficult to know where to start, but I think I will start with Steven Jay Gould’s idea, much-maligned in this crowd, of “Non-overlapping Magesteria”. The idea is that science & religion can peacefully coexist, so long as each is aware of the boundaries of its own discipline. Religion, he might say, is good for talking about God & other bits that transcend nature. Science - well, it’s the way to talk about nature. This is a convenient viewpoint for someone interested in reconciliation. But the new breed of scientist cum philosopher cries foul. Dawkins views Gould’s notion as accomodationist pandering, and wants no part of it. Sam Harris makes a point:

Every religion is making claims about the way the world is. 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.

Suddenly, the two Magesteria overlap! Honestly, though, I don’t think Gould’s idea is quite dead yet. Science, and, at times, religion talk about “reality”. You’ll note that Gould’s Magesteria do not include a category called “reality”. They include two categories, either or both of which may be subcategories of “reality”. One is the natural; the other is the “super”-natural - or, more gracefully, that which in some ways transcends nature. I think I can be forgiven for speaking for scientists and saying that science is equipped only to make claims about or to explain … nature. I don’t think this point is lost on Dawkins - or really, on any of the speakers - but I think its true import can be missed.

Allow me to back up. I think that even if reality includes the subcategory of the “supernatural” (in any but the most trivial sense), religion is not necessarily a good tool for understanding it. Religions are notorious for coming up with answers that are more or less random, reflect misunderstandings of the natural category, and contradict one another. Religion has no method for sorting fact from fancy in its talk of the supernatural, apart from hermeneutics applied to the presumptions of faith - that is to say, it has no good method for sorting fact from fancy. In fact, I rather agree with Dawkins & co., where it concerns the uselessness of supernatural thinking. But, I find it rather difficult to simultaneously respect the freedom of thought and conscience of another person (respect I hold to be essential), while at the same time insisting absolutely that they must adapt their methods of thinking to suit what I think is best. I might point out the failings of religion for understanding any of “reality” (correctly), but I will have to give them the benefit of the doubt if they find it useful for some purpose - even this one.

As I move forward again, I will start by pointing out that the existence of (any) God, or even an anthropomorphic God, or even the God of Christianity, is not only impossible to verify or falsify scientifically - it is impossible to even calculate the probability of such a thing. Certainly, there are arguments that can be made, if we wish to dismiss the supernatural side of the question. Intelligence, for instance, is something we find requires a biological nervous system. Nervous systems, we find, are something that have to evolve. God, presumably eternal and unchanging, wouldn’t have evolved a nervous system, and therefore there is no reason to suspect He would have intelligence. And that’s a sensible conclusion to come to, and - I think - quite correct. But the Magesterium of religion calls on the supernatural. There can be no physical “requirements” for the supernatural. A supernatural God could be intelligent without a nervous system - or could have a nervous system without it having evolved.

And there are good counter-arguments. If God doesn’t need to evolve His nervous system, or doesn’t need one at all, why must we, His critters, rely on these mere natural crutches? After all, aren’t we made in His image, with eternal souls & what not? But notice something about these counter-arguments. They are not quantifiable. They are certainly not testable. They are matters of philosophy, not science. Philosophy, unfortunately, relies upon a metaphysics… and metaphysics, unfortunately, are like assholes.

It seems science has run up against a wall… a boundary, if you will. Perhaps even an actual Magesterial boundary. Science has done a great job over the last 300 years of showing, progressively better and better, that there is no particular need to invoke a supernaturalist metaphysics to understand the world. But, it can do no more than that toward laying religion to rest. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Weinberg - all these luminaries - would do well to remember that when they speak of religion. They may trumpet science’s successes, and they may even proclaim the needlessness of religion for understanding the world… but when they go to saying that supernaturalism is not only useless for describing the world, but also untrue and harmful - they should take a break first. Sip a glass of water. Politely inform the audience that they will now speak not as scientist, but as philosopher. And then continue. There is no need to risk undermining the credibility of science in the public mind by hinting that it says something about subjects which it is not built for examining. Recognition of the boundaries of its Magesterium - of how they do not overlap with those neighboring disciplines of philosophy & theology, preserves both the integrity and the credibility of science.

Science can do no better than to show itself sufficient for understanding the world in which we live. Personally, I think it needs do no better than that. Need implies usefulness. Lack of need implies uselessness. Science is, then, 99/100 of the way to showing religion useless for understanding the world. Useless ideas, I would contend, will retreat on their own - and a quick look at the world around us - particularly Europe and eastern Asia - show that religion’s influence is dimming. In fact, even in the United States, the influence of religion has been on a cyclical decline over this time. Every generation, the number of Americans who believe in a literal Genesis story decreases. Someday, only a fringe will remain of that group.

And yet, religion will survive, until it is not only shown useless for understanding the world, but also useless for everything else. Here is where the fabulous scientists (with one possible exception) and myself tend to part ways. See, while I see religion as containing many harmful elements - not least of which is the continued determination in more conservative quarters to try to make statements about the real world and to make those statements seem needed - I’m not yet convinced that religion holds no value. I think that the rationalists, the realists, the scientists often have an unfortunate view of religion that it is primarily a set of stories about Creation, God, Virgin Births, and Bibles, and little else. Part of that is that rationalism, realism, and science are largely western phenomena, and Western religion has always placed great stock in just those stories. In addition, many of the moral ideas in religion can be repugnant. And this is mostly what secular westerners come into concact with from religion.

But religion is really a lot more than just its creation stories and backward ethics. It is prayer and meditation. It is ritual and reverence. It is art. It is organized (and often effective) charity. It is conscious manipulation of moods and mental states - from the euphoric to the trance-like. It is cultural norms. Sometimes, it is philosophy writ small for those outside academia. Sometimes it is self-help psychology for those unable or disinclined to visit a clinician regularly at clinician’s prices. It is formal remembrance of birth, marriage, and death. It is a bringer of people into mutually supportive communities.

Is religion as bad at all those other functions as it is for understanding the world or for creating a good system of ethics? Well, that is a good question - and, as it turns out, one on which science can cast its investigative lights. In fact, I think that science has a very strong calling right now, where it concerns religion. It has already masterfully shown religion’s uselessness for understanding the natural world. I believe it should now take up two further tasks with regard to religion.

One is a task that Daniel Dennett has already undertaken in his book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. That is to understand what religion is. What it does. Where it comes from. Just as modern doctors are so much better able to treat patients when they understand how both the patient and the pathogen work and evolved, so our culture will be better prepared to mend the harm which comes from religion and amplify what good it may contain, when we understand how it works & where it comes from. At the same time, scientifically aware atheists will learn how to better beat the stereotype they wear as angry boors who understand nothing of what they criticize. The less believers hear of half-baked just-so stories about why they believe - pithy remarks about how faith is a “crutch” for the weakminded and others that are so obviously short of the mark to the ears of insiders in the faith world - the more seriously they will take critics who rightly rebuke them for taking the Genesis story literally or who show them reasons not to be overly confident about the infallibility of their scriptures.

It’s also a matter of respect. Dawkins and Harris argue vociferously that religious belief deserves no respect. Perhaps not - but religious believers are entitled to the same respect as everyone else. And to make grand pronouncements about the nature of belief to those believers without understanding well what one is talking about: that is insulting - personally insulting.

The second task is also important. It is to identify in the real world what religion does well, and what it does poorly. Is there anything that religion does better than any other method? (I think it is likely we will find that it builds stronger communities “open” communities [meaning not closed, exclusive, or elite ones], and that it at least has the potential to do so more peacefully than nationalism [for instance], and without [necessarily] making institutions of bad ethics). Are there functions for which we can learn better methods from religion, for use outside religion? Are there ways to strip religion of its harmful or misbegotten enterprises, while retaining its useful functions?

It seems to me that these are the questions science should focus on now. The call to evangelize atheism can be answered by scientists and others who are working as armchair philosophers, but not by science itself. Besides this, atheism can and does rise by its own strength (or, rather, by the weakness of the alternative) - I don’t think it needs evangelical help. Right now, science has a higher calling (pun, cruelly, intended) with respect to religion. That is to understand it for what it is, and to find its usefulness for the tasks it undertakes besides the ones it sometimes attempts in common with science.