Seeing and Believing
By
Jerry A. Coyne
The New Republic, February 4, 2009
Edited by Andy Ross
Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution
By Karl W. Giberson
HarperOne, 248 pages
Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul
By Kenneth R. Miller
Viking, 244 pages
The National Academy of Sciences, America's most prestigious scientific body,
says: "Science and religion address separate aspects of human experience. Many
scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies of
biological evolution have enhanced rather than lessened their religious faith.
And many religious people and denominations accept the scientific evidence for
evolution."
But the real question is whether there is a philosophical incompatibility
between religion and science. Does the empirical nature of science contradict
the revelatory nature of faith? Are the gaps between them so great that the two
institutions must be considered essentially antagonistic?
Karl Giberson is a professor of physics at Eastern Nazarene College, a Christian
school, and has written three books on the tension between science and religion.
Kenneth Miller is a cell biologist at Brown University. As one of the most
ardent and articulate defenders of evolution against creationism, he is also an
observant Catholic.
As recounted by Giberson, the history of creationism in America has itself been
an evolutionary process guided by a form of natural selection. But all
creationists believe in God, claim that God miraculously intervened in the
development of life, agree that God created humans, and appeal to "irreducible
complexity."
Miller dismantles Intelligent Design by taking its "scientific" claims seriously
and following them to their illogical conclusion. He concludes that "the
hypothesis of design is compatible with any conceivable data, makes no new
testable predictions, and suggests no new avenues for research."
Giberson and Miller assert that the evolution of humans, or something very like
them, was inevitable. Given the way that evolution works, they claim, it was
certain that the animal kingdom would eventually work its way up to a species
that was conscious, highly intelligent, and above all, capable of apprehending
and worshipping its creator.
Evolutionists long ago abandoned the notion that there is an inevitable
evolutionary march toward greater complexity that culminated in humans. To
support the inevitability of humans, Giberson and Miller invoke the notion of
evolutionary convergence.In fact, there are good reasons for thinking that the
evolution of humanoids was a priori improbable. Giberson and Miller proclaim the
inevitability of humanoids for one reason only: Christianity demands it.
Miller raises another argument also used by creationists: the fine tuning of the
universe. Life as we know it depends heavily on the size of certain constants in
the laws of physics. We inhabit a "Goldilocks universe," where nature's laws are
just right to allow life to evolve and to thrive. This observation is called the
anthropic principle.
Scientists have other explanations. Perhaps some day we will see that a theory
of everything requires our universe to have the physical constants that we
observe. Alternatively, a "multiverse" theory may invoke the appearance of many
universes, each with different physical laws. The existence of a multiverse does
not require a leap of faith nearly as large as that of imagining a God.
The most common way to harmonize science and religion is to contend that they
are different but complementary ways of understanding the world. That is, there
are different "truths" offered by science and by religion that, taken together,
answer every question about ourselves and the universe.
Giberson confuses the strategic materialism of science with an absolute
commitment to a philosophy of materialism. Scientists rely on materialistic
explanations of nature because this is the best research strategy that has
evolved from our experience with nature. We have learned that the idea "God did
it" has never advanced our understanding of nature, and we abandoned it.
There is a fundamental distinction between scientific truths and religious
truths. The difference rests on how you answer one question: how would I know if
I were wrong? As with any scientific theory, there are potentially many ugly
facts that could kill Darwinism. Since no such facts have ever appeared, we
continue to accept evolution as true. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are
immune to ugly facts.
Giberson and Miller are thoughtful men of good will. Both of their books are
worth reading. Yet in the end they fail to unite faith and evolution. That
alleged synthesis requires that with one part of your brain you accept only
those things that are tested and supported by agreed-upon evidence, logic, and
reason, while with the other part of your brain you accept things that are
unsupportable or even falsified. The price of philosophical harmony is cognitive
dissonance.
This disharmony is a dirty little secret in scientific circles. It is in our
personal and professional interest to proclaim that science and religion are
perfectly harmonious. This is why groups such as the National Academy of
Sciences claim that religion and science do not conflict. But scientists are
growing ever more vociferous about their lack of faith.
Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the
University of Chicago.
Edge Reality Club
Edited by Andy Ross
Lawrence Krauss:
Religion is irrelevant to science, and whether or not science contradicts
religion may be of interest to theologians but it simply doesn't matter to
scientists. What matters are the important questions science is dealing with,
from the origin and future of the universe to the origin and future of life.
Theologians have to listen to scientists, because if they want to try to create
a consistent theology they at least need to know how the world works. But
scientists don't have to listen to theologians, because it has no effect
whatsoever on the scientific process.
Howard Gardner:
If you believe in the scientific method and the scientific enterprise, you will
have little patience for belief in revelation. For me, the important line in the
sand is not between those who believe in religion/God and those who don't. It is
between those who are tolerant of others' beliefs, so long as they dont
interfere with one's own belief system, and those who will not tolerate those
whose belief system is fundamentally different. I'll settle for mutual
tolerance.
Lisa Randall:
By sheer coincidence the day I read this Edge question, a charming young actor
sat next to me on my plane to LA and without any prompting answered it for me.
Science and faith are entirely different methods for trying to approach truth.
You can derive a contradiction only if your rules are logic. If you believe in
revelatory truth you've abandoned the rules. There is no contradiction to be
had.
Patrick Bateson:
Attempting to reconcile religion with science is a pointless exercise. If you
live comfortably and are surrounded by good friends and endless opportunities
for a stimulating and interesting life, then your need for belief in an
omniscient and all-caring being is not great. But if you have a wretched life
with nothing to be happy about, you may well want something to cling onto. It
seems staggeringly insensitive to tell such people that they are fooling
themselves.
Daniel Everett:
Religion is philosophically incompatible with science. I believe that theology
is a waste of time. However, scientists belong to societies. No one practices
science in a vacuum, culturally, financially, or even religiously. It is
important to maintain respectful dialog on what the proper relationship of
science is to religion if for no other reason than the fact that the National
Science Foundation is hugely subsidized by the taxes of religious people.
Daniel C. Dennett:
Jerry Coyne nicely dissects the urge of many people to persuade themselves that
their religion can coexist peacefully with science in general and evolutionary
biology in particular. And he shows just how hopeless this quest is. The
question remains: why is this urge so strong? We can continue to respect the
good intentions of those who persist in professing belief in God, but we'll be
doing them a favor if we stop pretending that we respect the arguments they use
to sustain these fantasies.
Lee Smolin:
Any attempted reconciliation between a believer of monotheistic religion and a
scientist is bedeviled by a troubling asymmetry. No scientist would deny to
someone who doesn't believe in natural selection the lifesaving benefits of
medicines developed based on its premises. But this generosity is not
reciprocated. The greatest gift revelatory religions have to offer is the
promise of heaven. Were they to practice the brotherhood that they preach this
would be offered to all, irrespective of belief. We scientists, who are lucky to
be members of the most inclusive and diverse community on the planet, should
understand the need of others to be bound in communities with people who share
their values and hopes.
George Dyson:
Science and religion are here to stay. That an incessant stream of books
attempting to reconcile science and religion keeps rolling off the assembly line
is a testament to the success of the Templeton Foundation.
Emanuel Derman:
I think scientists should stop wasting their time trying to beat up on the idea
of God in the name of science. Professional scientists have no special expertise
other than at science. The universe may indeed have started in a big bang, but
that doesn't negate anything deep. Mental reality is as real as physical
reality, and a necessary precursor to theorizing about physical reality.
Karl W. Giberson:
Coyne speaks of "theologians with a deistic bent" who inappropriately presume to
"speak for all the faithful." The implication is that the faithful are the more
authentically religious and the theologians are an aberration. This seems unfair
to me. The great masses of these faithful should be juxtaposed with the great
masses of people who believe in science but are not professionals. Most
Americans believe in science. What do you suppose science would look like, were
it defined by these believers? Science as "lived and practiced by real people"
is quite different from the science promoted by the intellectuals in this
conversation.
Empirical science does indeed trump revealed truth about the world, as Galileo
and Darwin showed only too clearly. But empirical science also trumps other
empirical science. How is it that science is allowed to toss its historical
baggage overboard when its best informed leaders decide to do so, even though
the ideas continue to circulate on main street, but religion must forever be
defined by the ancient baggage carried by its least informed?
The world disclosed by science is rich and marvelous, but most people think
there is more to it. Our religious traditions embody our fitful and imperfect
reflections on this mysterious and transcendent intuition. There is a widespread
fear on America's main streets that evolution is destroying a cherished belief
in God. I wonder what would happen if, in the name of pluralism and diplomacy,
we could all agree that it was OK for people to believe that evolution was a
part of God's plan.
Kenneth R. Miller:
Jerry Coynee believes that God does not exist, and that any reasonable person
should think as he does, rejecting the elixir of faith as pointless delusion.
Coyne flatly states that faith and science are not compatible, arguing that the
empirical nature of science contradicts the revelatory nature of faith.
Evolution produced the fabric of life that covers our planet, including our own
species. If God is the creator of that world, then it would be perfectly
reasonable for a religious person to see our emergence as part of God's plan for
that universe.
Science does require methodological naturalism. We live in a material world, and
we use the materials of nature to study the way nature works. By definition,
that confines science to purely naturalistic explanations, because only those
are testable, and only those have validity as science. But the real issue is
whether a scientist's view on the question of God is incompatible with their
scientific work. Clearly, it is not.
Coyne's entire critique is based upon the assumption that science is the only
legitimate form of knowledge. To Coyne, any deviation from that view is
adultery. But one can embrace science in every respect and still ask a deeper
question. Why does science work? The true vow of a scientist is to practice
honest and open empiricism in every aspect of his scientific work. That vow does
not preclude the scientist from stepping back, acknowledging the limitations of
scientific knowledge, and asking the deeper questions.
Sam Harris:
It is a pity that people like Jerry Coyne and Daniel Dennett can't see how
easily religion and science can be reconciled. Their fundamentalist rationality
has blinded them to deeper truths. Hindus worship a multiplicity of gods.
Muslims acknowledge the existence of only one, and believe that polytheism is a
killing offense. Do Hinduism and Islam conflict? Only "if your rules are logic."
Patrick Bateson tells us that it is "staggeringly insensitive" to undermine the
religious beliefs of people who find these beliefs consoling. I agree
completely. I realize the pain that a pious Muslim man might feel at the sight
of young women learning to read. Who am I to criticize the public expression of
his faith?
Kenneth Miller delivers the perspective of a genuine believer. He is especially
good at separating scientific rationality from every other form of human
cognition. The universe is rationally intelligible because the God of Abraham
has made it so. This God instilled in us the cognitive ability to subsequently
understand the cosmos in scientific terms. As to why science has been the
greatest agent for the mitigation of religious belief the world has ever seen,
and has been viewed as a threat by religious people in almost every context,
this is a final mystery that defies human analysis.
Steven Pinker:
Jerry Coyne applies rigorous standards of logic and evidence to the claims of
religion and to the attempts to reconcile it with science. Many scientists who
share his atheism still believe that he is somehow being rude or uncouth for
pressing the point. But he is right to do so. Knowledge is a continuous fabric,
in which ideas are connected to other ideas. Reason-free zones, in which people
can assert arbitrary beliefs safe from ordinary standards of evaluation, can
only corrupt this fabric. The reconciliationist arguments depend on theological
propositions, and there is no reason that they should not be subjected to the
standards of reason.
Michael Shermer:
I don't think a union between science and religion is possible for a logical
reason, but by this same logic I conclude that science cannot contradict
religion. To attempt to use nature to prove the supernatural is a violation of A
is A. Naturalism cannot also be supernaturalism. In a natural worldview, there
is only the natural and mysteries left to explain through natural means.
AR "I am that I am," said the God of our fathers. This is the key to an evolutionary explanation of the astonishing success story of the Abrahamic monotheisms. Genes drive us to genuflect to a revelated transgenerational superself. Goofology corroborates genocentricity. Goof is great, and Dawkins is his prophet.
