Yesterday’s interfaith panel held at my university was interesting. The Hindu was a no-show so the first part began with the other three panelists (the Protestant campus chaplain, a Jewish rabbi, and a Muslim imam, who was the same person from Thursday’s session) each giving 15 minutes presentations. The Protestant chaplain was a minister in the United Church of Christ. This is one of the most socially enlightened and progressive of Christian denominations.
I was particularly interested in the Jewish rabbi. Normally the Jews who attend these sessions are from the more liberal Reform tradition but in this case he was Orthodox. But he broke several stereotypes about Orthodox Judaism. He was young and dressed casually in open-neck shirt and slacks, not all in black, with only a yarmulke as a sign that he was religious. He had a beard but a short, scruffy, surfer-dude type of beard, not the more common full, well-groomed ones seen on many Orthodox men. He had spent a lot of time working on Indian reservations in the US and with the Mayans. He was clearly more open and attuned to modern progressive thought and values. I had a good conversation with him while we waited in line for food and ate and would have enjoyed talking to him more, to probe his beliefs and attitudes, but unfortunately did not get the opportunity.
During the Q/A session, the Catholic chaplain and I joined the three of them and we addressed five questions. Both the Catholic and Protestant chaplains were women, which made a change from Thursday’s all-male session.
1. What are some ways to create dialogue among inter-religious groups?
Everyone said that we need to provide more opportunities and a space for such dialogue. I added that student groups that are based on religion or ethnicity or other divisions should make it a priority the engage in organizing and co-sponsoring joint events, because working cooperatively on a worthwhile project with people who are different from you can often lead to a greater respect for others than simply talking with them
2. If someone is not affiliated with any religion, can they be religious?
I passed on this one but the others all said yes, more or less. The rabbi said that it was clear that more and more young people were dissatisfied with religious institutions as evidenced by the fact that those who identified as ‘not affiliated’, popularly referred to as the ‘nones’, were the fastest growing group, and the rise of the “I’m spiritual but not religious” way of identifying oneself.
3. How can you reach someone who seems committed to a very different point of view?
My answer to this (based on my own experience as a teacher and on the research literature) was that it is not effective to try and reason such people out of their beliefs. If you simply argue against them, they are likely to dig in and reinforce their existing beliefs. Instead what one should do is let the other person articulate their views, with your role being to ask them probing questions about why they believe what they believe and, when they cite reasons and evidence, to pose counter-examples and evidence and invite them to reconcile this with their prior beliefs. In other words, get them to do the intellectual heavy lifting. As they dig down into their own minds and thoughts, they are more likely to begin the process of change.
4. Can science and religion co-exist?
This was of course the biggie. It always is. All the other panelists said that they could co-exist, which was no surprise, since religious people have no choice but to accept the existence of science. It was clear that they based their sense of compatibility on a combination of ‘god of the gaps’ (i.e., there are many things that science cannot explain and this is where god can be found) and on the idea of religion addressing questions of values and ethics while science deals with the material.
I was definitely the outlier on this. I said that there are three levels to view this question. On a broad philosophical level, they are incompatible. Science simply cannot function if it allows for any supernatural interventions, while almost all religious formulations require some supernatural intervention in the world.
On an individual level, people are quite capable of holding two contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time, if they want to. There are, after all, religious scientists. One can make science and religion seem compatible simply by not asking oneself the hard philosophical questions about compatibility.
On a social level, I said that we have to go beyond compatibility and that it is often irrelevant for important social issues. There are urgent and major issues of social justice that must be addressed in the world and we have to learn to work together if we are to seriously address them. I said that I really did not care what other people believed if they and I could work together on social justice issues.
UPDATE: I forgot to include the fifth question and response so here they are.
5. What makes you choose not to believe in god?
This question was of course addressed to me. I said that one did not need a reason to not believe in things that are invisible or which have not been incontrovertibly established. So one did not need reasons to not believe in ghosts, fairies, zombies, werewolves, vampires, and the like. If one believed in the existence of every conceivable thing, one could not function because one would be living in a demon-haunted world (to borrow Carl Sagan’s phrase), constantly terrified by the possibility of monsters lurking under one’s bed.
I said that I did not believe in a god because there was no reason to do so. God’s existence was not self-evidently true. It was people who believed in a god who had to provide reasons as to why they chose to do so.
After the session ended, people were encouraged to stay on and discuss informally and I sat at the table with the imam and about ten students and we had a lively discussion for an hour. This was the best part for me, as it usually is, and the discussion was almost entirely about science and religion.
Were there any other intriguing answers to #3 or #4? Also, you wrote that five questions were addressed and there are only four.
Science doesn’t ‘allow’ for anything, does it? Observation, pattern, theory. Science has functioned since before ‘science’ was a word, and while divine intervention was considered commonplace. ‘supernatural’ is one of those words which people on both sides of the religion/atheism divide play endless silly games with. When someone can give me a convincing definition of what they mean, I’d be happy to engage*. Same with the endless bollocks about ‘consciousness’ and ‘free will’.
I’m an atheist because, since I could rub two neurons together (age around 13), I felt as Laplace may have when he supposedly said “I had no need of that hypothesis”. I think that’s largely because of my privileged position. My ‘faith’, if it can be called that, is that education and social justice will lead to a world in which god is no longer necessary**. Those are the goals worth striving for. Trying to convince people they don’t need god(s) is a losing proposition before these goals are achieved.
*Everything I’ve read on both sides has been sophistry.
**I remain hopeful while extremely pessimistic.
The first problem would be clarifying what they mean by “religious.” Many religious people still equate religion with morality.
doublereed @#1,
I did not keep notes at this session but nothing struck me as particularly intriguing.
Thanks for reminding me of the fifth question. I have updated the post to include it.
Good replies, Mano.
Rob Grigjanis @#2;
“Science”, of course, doesn’t do anything on its own. I think it’s fair to say that what Mano intended was that a person attempting to gain scientific knowledge while allowing for supernatural explanations is probably going to be far less successful. If Subject A and subject B have very different reactions to drug X, thinking the explanation could be that subject B’s chakras were misaligned or that it is due to the configuration of the solar system at the time of the subjects’ birth, will probably steer a researcher in the wrong direction and waste the researcher’s efforts.
moarscienceplz @5:
Yes, I reckoned it was obvious that I meant “the practice of science by people”. I’ll try to make it clearer in future.
Depends on the person, and the sort of supernatural explanations they allow. Newton, Leibniz and Maxwell did OK, and it’s amusing to contemplate someone telling them ‘ur doin it wrong’. And those who might say that Newton could have achieved much more if he didn’t believe in God’s tinkering would be silly. It’s like saying George Best could have been a better footballer if he hadn’t drunk or partied as much. People are much more complicated than the sum of their various beliefs/behaviours.
You could use the same sort of argument to claim that religion and politics are incompatible. If someone believes Armageddon is imminent, their policy choices could be, er, interesting. On the other hand, a believer could also think it is their duty to make other people’s lives better. Or to reveal the glory of God’s creation, as it presents itself;
Anyway, I’ll take one Abdus Salam over ten mediocre atheists any day.
I’m not aware of any instance where Newton, Leibniz or Maxwell demonstrated any sort of supernatural influence on anything. Sure, they believed in an invisible god who underpinned the universe in some fashion, but I sure would like you to tell me how that belief contributed to their research in any way. Newton even dabbled in alchemy, which not only did not result in any significant scientific knowledge, it put him at risk for a charge of witchcraft, which would have seriously impacted his future scientific investigations had he been arrested.
As for “revealing the glory of God’s creation”, maybe that belief has spurred someone somewhere to work more diligently at their research than would otherwise be the case, but I suspect most people who are uttering such a line are really just reciting boilerplate that they heard from other people. From what I’ve seen, people become scientists mostly because it excites them, personally. “Helping Mankind” is often in the mix too, but “Glory of God” stuff is way down the list. After all, scientists are more likely to be atheists than the general population, and the higher up in the scientific foodchain you are, the less likely it is that you believe in a god.
As far as I know, no-one has “demonstrated any sort of supernatural influence on anything”. And my point was that their beliefs didn’t seem to impede their science. I just don’t think it’s a big deal. Good science is good science, regardless of the scientist’s beliefs. Bad science will be found out, and from what I’ve seen, it rarely has anything to do with religion.
Your last paragraph doesn’t look very scientific to me. Some reading.
Rob, I’m afraid you are missing the point. Neither Mano nor I am saying that one has to be an atheist to be a good scientist. There are lots of believers who are doing good science. The point is that if someone is a goodscientist and a believer, they are compartmentalizing. In other words, when they are formulating hypotheses and designing experiments, they have “turned off” or, if you prefer, they are not currently using the believing part of their consciousness. And, when they are doing religious stuff (praying, looking for inspiration in a holy text, whatever) they are not using the scientific, rational part of their consciousness.
Those people who don’t turn off their belief when they “do science” are the kind of people the Discovery Institute is full of. They are twisting their conclusions to leave room for a god to meddle with the universe, and they are NOT doing good science (in my opinion, and presumably Mano’s as well).
Those people who don’t turn off their rational, scientific part while they are contemplating their religious beliefs are going to see how unsustainable those beliefs are, and eventually they will become non-believers. It may take a long time. They may spend years agonizing over it, and many will scurry back to the unexamined belief system that they find so comfortable, but if they truly let their scientist selves put their belief system under a microscope, it cannot stand.
Oh yes? Here’s a quote from the very article you provide:
Sure looks to me like they support my contention.
I’ll take issue with that.
My short argument: Imagine that tomorrow you find that the world resembles that of a Christian horror film / comedy film like “Dogma”, “End Of Days”, “The Prophecy”, and so forth. Or imagine that tomorrow, you find that this world is like the world of Shadowrun and the Awakening happens. Are you going to be a flat-earth atheist? Or are you going to accept the reality of your situation? If you’re not a stubborn fool, you will have to admit that if you found yourself in these situations, you would have to accept the existence of magic, or accept the existence of powerful creatures that resembles the description of Christian angels and the Christian god, and so forth. On what basis would you make that determination? Normal empirical reasoning, aka science. If your “methodological naturalism” is an a priori philosophical position about the fundamental limits of scientific inquiry, and if you agree that science can give results concerning gods, magic, etc., then what exactly is off limits? Seemingly, nothing is off limits. What does it even mean to assert this intrinsic form of methodological naturalism? it’s not right. It’s not wrong. It’s not even wrong.
For rebuttals to all of the common wrong-headed arguments on this topic, I suggest the following peer reviewed philosophy of science paper.
> How not to attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism
> (final draft – to appear in Foundations of Science)
> Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke, Johan Braeckman
https://sites.google.com/site/maartenboudry/teksten-1/methodological-naturalism
Enlightenmnet Liberal,
You are speculating about what might have to happen if the existence of a supernatural agency or magical were conclusively proven. My position is that it has not been thus shown and science proceeds as if it will not. We do not allow the explanation for anything to be ‘it’s god’ or ‘it’s magic’ because that would be antithetical to how science is done. That is what I mean when I say that science does not allow for supernatural interventions.
What would science be like after conclusive evidence is produced of the supernatural, say god appearing in the sky and doing all kinds of magic stuff? Who knows? But until such a thing happens, we do not allow for supernatural explanations.
Accepting the reality of the supernatural after it is conclusively demonstrated is quite different from accepting it before. Accepting any reality after the fact is quite different from saying that any potential reality has to be accepted before the fact.
In that it is like any other fanciful speculation like the existence of werewolves or the like. I don’t believe they exist and proceed as if they don’t and that any supposed sightings have a natural explanation. If one is produced, then I would accept it and adjust my thinking accordingly. But not until then.
Sorry. I think we might have had this conversation previously. I remember now. Your position is entirely acceptable, reasonable, and comparable to my own.
Still, I might quibble with your specific terminology. Science does have something to say about werewolves, fairies, angels, etc. Science says that they do not exist.
Let me explain one of my primary reasons for this quibble. I agree with your position when you expounded upon it at length. However, look at what you wrote at first:
I have seen many theists take this expression, and similar expressions, at face value. At face value, this expression does convey the meaning “I will never accept the existence of the supernatural, no matter what sort of evidence that you bring”. So, when we atheists state that our current lack of acceptance / outright rejection of the theist’s position is dependent on the lack of evidence / positive contradicting evidence, the theists rightly and correctly see a philosophical contradiction. In other words, we atheists often rightly ask theists for their reasons, for their evidence, but that very question depends on the premise that our current conclusions are based on evidence, and that we are willing to change our minds based on evidence. However, when you advertise “Science simply cannot function if it allows for any supernatural interventions,”, it looks very much like that you are denying the possibility that evidence can change your mind. This leads to a great confusion. Many theists then do a simple projection, and they conclude that atheists have a faith belief that the supernatural does not exist.
I recognize that there are problems with my approach. Our shared approach of provisional methodological naturalism can only be properly defended ala Boudry’s paper. In particular, it can only be properly defended by noting that we have accumulated a massive wealth of evidence against the existence of the supernatural. It is a firm scientific conclusion that the supernatural does not exist. It’s just as firm as the conclusion that the Earth is round, and that the sun will rise tomorrow. The current proper approach is the tentative assumption, backed up by overwhelming evidence, that the supernatural does not exist. This is exactly comparable to the tentative assumption that the laws of thermodynamics are true, and perpetual motion machines are impossible, and we are justified in making this tentative assumption because of a wealth of evidence. If a scientist in the lab wants to explain their findings with elves, it’s wrong for the same reasons if someone tries to explain their findings via the supposition of the existence of a perpetual motion machine. In both cases, the scientist is wrong because they almost certainly have not produced enough evidence to overcome the massive wealth of positive background evidence that such things do not exist.
Unfortunately, maybe people are uncomfortable with taking this strong stance in accordance with the evidence. Maybe it’s Dennett’s “belief in belief”. Maybe it’s just an undue amount of humility. Another aspect is that there are interesting political arguments that one should lie about these facts as part of an overall accommodationist tactic in order to achieve atheistic political goals. I cannot do that, because I will not lie in order to fight against theism; theism is a paragon of intellectual dishonesty, and IMHO we cannot win the fight by using dishonesty ourselves.
Also, for an example of the kind of evidence that I have to justify my position “there are no gods”, please see this blog post by PZ Myers:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/03/03/thor/
moarscienceplz @9:
Read a bit about James Clerk Maxwell, then come back and explain how he was ‘compartmentalizing’. You have an oversimplistic view of the religion/science question which is far too common among atheists. Oversimplistic views seem to be The Thing in the Internet Age (there, that’s my oversimplification for the day!). Not helped by your cherry-picking a sentence from the article I linked.
From my quick reading just now, it seems that Maxwell believed in the divinity of Jesus. So, at best he was too trusting of others regarding the purported evidence for the divinity of Jesus, or he did not apply proper scientific methods to the question “did Jesus have certain magic powers?” e.g. compartmentalizing.
What’s your actual point? Can you please make it clearly, rather than trying to have us guess.
I really should quit the internet.
Er, because that wasn’t his fucking job. Too bad you weren’t there to
borelecture him about the questions he should address. His job, as he saw it, was to examine the workings of Nature, without prejudice as to those workings.More Maxwells would be a good thing.
To Rob Grigjanis
I still don’t understand your point. Could you please be specific as to how you think that I am wrong? For example, is it true that Maxwell believed that Jesus is a god? Was Maxwell in possession of enough evidence and reason to justify this assertion?
EnlightenmentLiberal @18: I still don’t understand your point*. Could you please be specific as to how Maxwell’s beliefs undermine his scientific work?
*Actually, I’m convinced you don’t have one.
1) I find the question ‘What were you like before you became deluded?’ works.
2) Yes, the first person to become religious had no denomination.
3) Your are human, I’m human … what a coincidence. Lets talk about what humans want and need independent of supernaturalism.
4) Yes, the light coexists with the dark.
5) God is an unnecessary category.