The American temperance movement labored for decades to equate chardonnay with demon rum. In the Midwest they joined forces with fundamentalist Christians and finally began to influence local elections, then county and even state elections. Kansas became the first state to outlaw alcoholic beverages. Reasonable people who were against such outright bans were either shamed into supporting them or were vilified as supporters of public drunkenness.
Other states soon joined Kansas, and the Prohibition movement rapidly became politically fashionable. Against its better judgment, America passed the 18th Amendment, totally banning the making and selling of alcoholic beverages. Suddenly, buying a bottle of wine for your evening meal was the equivalent of vandalism or theft.
In a similar way, religion has become today's de facto temperance. Candidates for president are compelled to demonstrate their religious credentials. Those without strong religious convictions, must either pretend otherwise or be vilified as immoral, unfit to lead America. If they're Democrat they may be accused of being part of a war on family (read "Christian") values.
A recent Gather article (I wanted to provide a link, but I can't find it now) tried to demonstrate that science is actually based on faith and is therefore a religion. Since the general, non-scientist population cannot study or understand the underlying research and presentations, it said, they must take on faith any resulting conclusions; ergo science is really faith. The article implies that trained scientists are the priests of the religion, and everyone else is either a believer or a skeptic.
Accepting that premise for a minute and thinking back over the past 500 or so years of Western history, then science as a religion is superior to all the other religions hands down. Science has shown us the stars; religion persecuted Galileo for daring to look at them closely. Science has given us cures for smallpox, polio and a host of childhood diseases that had killed millions of children through the ages. Science has given us tools and discoveries that have eliminated abject poverty for hundreds of millions of people, freeing them from lives of squalor.
On the other hand, religion has often stood in the way of scientific advancement, condemning early surgical and other medical research. Even today, religious convictions stand in the way of embryonic stem cell research. Recent advances in other areas of stem cell research merely avoided a looming backlash, at least for now.
As for the claim that we must take scientific advances on faith, one does not have to know celestial mechanics to understand that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around as the Church insisted for centuries. One does not need to be able to calculate the terminal velocity of a falling object to understand that others can do it. We don't need to understand the physiology of leukemia to see that it can be cured by scientific advances, not by prayer.
And one does not need to watch children of Christian Scientist parents die in pain from easily cured maladies or hear Christians shouting "Praise Jesus" as they blow up a family planning clinic to see the danger of unquestioning belief in a concept that cannot be tested.
Science and religion are equivalent? Nonsense!
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 37
I believe the article you mentioned was pointing at the "science" of evolution. Of course the breakthroughs you mention are real and can be proven, but evolution is still more of a matter of faith than of fact. Scientists in labratories can make rock formations appear to be older than they are by subjecting them to wind and rain and erosion. Carbon dating has been proven to be not as reliable as we were led to believe.
My sister - a sr. VP for a major chemical company - has an excellent video series that shows these things. A video done by scientists who are also Christian. I wish it was more widely available. Or that some TV network would choose to run it.
Science does make assumptions, sometimes those are overthrown as well. But though those assumptions are accepted, they are not taken on faith. Those assumptions can also be disproven.
Finally, science is *not* scientists. Scientists are only human with all the weaknesses inherent in human beings. They yield to temptation to lie about their experiments, they are biased, they are prone to error. Science itself is none of those things. Science is the technique (the scientific method, which includes theory and hypothesis) and the data. Nothing else.
The fact that some people feel that they can equate science to a religion shows how very little they actually know about science, its history, and the methods used in research to actually come to scientific conclusions. It is a sure sign of the dumbing down of America when people can speak of the term "theory" used in science (i.e.,"Theory of Evolution") as the same as the term "theory" as it is used colloquially.
People show their total ignorance of science when they speak in these terms. And, their ignorance coupled with religious leaders' insistence of dogma over reality has led to a disintegration of our science curricula in our schools, which will lead to more ignorance. It is a sad, sad state of affairs in this country. One need only look at the fall of the Islamic empire in Europe to see where we are headed if this is not stopped by people of intelligence, education and reason in positions of leadership.
No, the article I responded to here wasn't about evolution, but science in general.
"Carbon dating has been proven to be not as reliable as we were led to believe." Perhaps so, but still infinitely superior to Genesis.
"In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis."
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=2
and sign on with other concerned citizens, including academics and leaders in the scientific community.
Thanks for the elaboration on theory versus hypothesis. I wish more people (and especially journalists) knew the difference and used the terms correctly.
Larry:
You make an excellent point about "scientists" as distinct from "science".
Marilyn:
Evolution is NOT more faith than fact. Just because we don't have complete explanations for it all doesn't mean evolution is fable. There is far more fact in any aspect of the evolutionary explanation of our development than in all the creationism story. ID is not even at the level of theory - it's merely speculation that can never be tested. Anyway, I'm glad you accept that other fields of science such as medicine and astronomy are "proven" (even though many are not).
Science is indeed a discipline that involves a great deal of faith - as any discipline does. For example, to risk hundreds of millions of dollars in the launch of a space probe to visit Mars and beyond takes a great deal of faith in one's calculations.
The problem in discussing science and religion is that examples of extreme religious points of view are always used against mainstream scientific points of view. People with extreme religious perspectives are always against science, because science will always prove them wrong.
On the other hand, thoughtful theological perspectives and thoughtful scientific perspectives actually support one another.
Bad religion and bad science have in common the drive for power and to control people. Good religion and good science have in common the drive to enlighten and free people.
I would assert that evolution is a fact - and provable in almost every biology and medical research lab from high school on. If you claim you do not believe in evolution, yet continue to reap the benefits of modern medicine, then you are either completely deluded or a hypocrite.
Gary, you are being held hostage by the Hollywood representation of the mad scientist - that is NOT reality. Can you provide some credible list of "bad scientists" out for "power and control"? I'd like to have their names and what they are doing and how it will provide them power and control over people so that I can look into this further. All the scientists and engineers that I know and have read about are trying to make this world a better place. Thanks.
No, Marilyn. Your statement illustrates how DIFFERENT they are. Science, by its very nature, encourages people to continually question findings and conclusions. That is an inherent part of the Scientific Method. The fact that some of the evolutionary links were disproven shows that clearly. Show me ANY religious belief that is being questioned or disproven. Was Jesus really born of a virgin? Did the resurrection really happen? Are devoutly religious people studying these things to see if they are true?
But science is amoral. It has given us weapons, including weapons of mass destruction. Science in the service of Nazism is as destructive as religion in the service of fanatic, self-righteous fundamentalism.
In the past, science has primarily focused on the physical, the outer life. As science deals more and more with things that are not visible to the human eye, this is beginning to change.
Religions, on the other hand, have acknowledged the inner life of humans. As such, they deal with "mythos," the patterns and values of a people, not facts. People of faith often have led their cultures to develop values that promote social justice.
When a religion encounters other values, it may experience an identity crisis that leads to violence. Religion is a hot button to push because it deals with meaning. But atheism also produced violence in the Soviet Union and in China under Mao Zedong.
Life incorporates inner and outer, individual and community. To get the most sustainable policies and actions, a culture needs to consider and address all four components of life.
Here's my divining rod in telling a good scientist. Can you question them? Can they show their work?
There are several "scientists" of my acquaintance who see themselves as such experts that no one is qualified to challenge their conclusions. In my opinion, these are the ones giving the rest a bad name. They are the few that equate their "science" with faith.
What sets science apart is that showing your work is mandatory, questioning the results is expected, encouraged. Finding new ways of looking at things is what makes it successful. If that's not what it's doing, it ain't science, in my book. And that's what makes it so different from faith.
I was eight or so when I decided I didn't want to go to church any more. Why? Ah, that's the precise question I kept asking that no one could tell me. I had to take it on "faith" even if it didn't make any sense. That's when I decided I didn't want to believe in anything that required I turn off my brain. I do believe in a higher being but, in my scientific way, with no data, I have only hypotheses on His/Her motivations, powers, levels of omniscience, etc. Those beliefs make me happy, but I never run into conflicts with science. After all, assuming God had the power to supercede physical laws, why would he do so? Why have 'em if you ain't gonna use 'em?
Bert had some good points I thought above (and so did others, but I'm too lazy to scroll up and the part of my brain that I store names in is flaky). Verie, I don't disagree to an extent. Science doesn't have a conscience, but neither does it crave power. The horrors you've subscribed to science is really the misuse of science by others that wanted power. Sadly, that had frequently applied to the religious too.
Note also that the term "atheists" is used too broadly here, Verie. People can be secular without being atheists. And those who want power and use any means they can to get it can be religious or otherwise, usually driven by what will get them the most fastest. Having said that, religion is as blameless for those that use it to garner power as science is.
The key thing here, is that the conflict between religion and science doesn't have to be.
I have observed that the world has suffered far less from ignorance than from pretensions to knowledge. It is not skeptics or explorers but fanatics and ideologues who menace decency and progress. No agnostic ever burned anyone at the stake or tortured a pagan, a heretic, or an unbeliever.
--Daniel Boorstin
"thoughtful theological perspectives and thoughtful scientific perspectives actually support one another. " Excellent point. I agree, so long as the thoughtful theologian doesn't try to foist off some half-baked story about intelligent design.
Verie:
Very thoughtful comments, especially that science is amoral. It asks questions and seeks answers, wherever those answers lead. (Usually it's to more questions.)
"Science in the service of Nazism is as destructive as religion in the service of fanatic, self-righteous fundamentalism." Wonderful!!
"Why have 'em if you ain't gonna use 'em?" Indeed. A god that could create the physical laws that we observe probably doesn't care how or even whether mortal people worship her.
If you're in the mood for a little related humor, try this story
It is true that bad things can result from scientific developments. It is equally true that bad things can result from religious beliefs. I certainly do not need to give you examples of both. There are so many! In both cases, individuals create the evil, in spite of the good intentions of the majority.
The difference, in my view, is that evil done in the course of science is denounced by all true scientists, but evil done in the course of religious belief is often condoned, or even quietly approved. The difference is TOLERANCE for differing views.
And that is the great failing of all religions.
Here is the link.
Scientists who are really making a difference do not work for corporations - they work for institutions that are dedicated to advancing science for knowledge's sake, not for a profit. The NIH is a perfect example of this. Universities with graduate and post-grad research are other examples.
That's a very good point, and applies in other areas as well. I worked for over 2 years for Enron, and saw a lot of good work there. It was easily a highlight of my career, but a handful of greedy, grasping people tainted the entire company, and eventually killed it.
1. The trouble with Stalin, Mao, et al was not atheism, but their dogmatic communist ideology, which denied human freedom, suppressed dissent, and imposed a system which, apart form not working, unfailingly selected for the most cruel people to reach the top. It was an ideology without supernatural beliefs, but it operated just like a religion: you had to believe stuff that you could see was not true. (Substitute the present tense where still appropriate.)
2. While science is amoral, religion is not alone in addressing moral issues or the "inner lives" of people. Philosophy, ethics, psychology, indeed literature have been doing that, and somewhat more reliably--due to their openness to debate--than thought systems where, for example, you have the golden rule and the idea of the virgin birth all mixed up in one unquestionable faith. Religion makes both "ought" statements (how things should be) and "is" statements (how things are)--and the latter, unlike scientific "is" statements, are unproven. Yet religion gets to carry the credit from one area to the other, and none of it is supposed to be questioned.
Back to your article, Gary--your points about how we can see that science works reminded me of how Richard Dawkins reportedly answered someone at a conference who argued that other systems of thought were equally valid. It was something like: so instead of the plane you flew here on, you could have taken a flying carpet? (Not a literal quote.)
Very eloquent and thoughtful points. Thank you very much for coming back. Re your 2nd point: one of the many things that infuriates me is the claim by the ardently religious that they hold a monopoly on morality when that is so patently and obviously not true. Examples abound, from pedophile priests to kleptomaniac TV preachers to homosexual evangelical gay-bashers.
Thank you for pointing out that distinction. If we could just eliminate the imprecision in terms, that alone would go a long way toward elevating the discussion. Sheryl's distinction bewtween "hypothesis" and "theory" helps, too.
There are two interesting things about the resurrection. One, none of the gospels agree on what happened. Each one has different people going to the tomb and what happens when they get there, their visit happens at different times and their reactions vary. Mark, the first gospel, which had a resurrection story tacked on by a later editor, actually ends with the women going to the tomb and finding it empty. Their response is to run away because they're afraid. Matthew and Luke were partially based on Mark, but tell two completely different stories. If you compare Mark to John, they're talking about two completely different types of people. The Jesus of Mark is totally human and has doubts about his mission and destiny whereas the Jesus of John is a god incarnate who knows who he is and what he's there to accomplish. You simply can't reconcile the two. Ask a true believer to explain those inconsistencies and in most cases he or she will deny they're there.
The second interesting thing is that none of the gospels provide an account of the resurrection. They only tell what happened afterwards. The single most important event in Christianity and none of the stories of Jesus says a word about it. All we're told is that a woman or some women show up at the tomb and find Jesus' body missing. They're told he's been resurrected but none of them witness it.
Paul, who is the first Christian writer and the one writing closest to the time Jesus is said to have lived never talks about Jesus' earthly mission. He describes in his letters meeting up with Jesus' followers, presumably the apostles, but never talks about what they did while Jesus was around. In almost all of his statements about Jesus, he's referring to a heavenly presence, not a flesh and blood man who actually walked the Earth performing miracles.
Paul and Irenaeus took over a movement begun by a Jewish preacher, who preached a message very much against the orthodoxy of the rabbinate. Paul and Irenaeus and their followers persecuted anyone who deviated from their interpretations of that message (such as Thomas supporters). Without them, the movement would have fragmented and Christianity would not exist today.