Values of Godless Science

8/7/2019 Values of Godless Science

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/values-of-godless-science 1/29

Values of Godless Science: Modern Science

Needs No Religion or Gods for Values

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Modern, Godless Science is not Value-Free:

It is commonly claimed by both critics and supporters that modern

science is value-free. This is false, though it is true that science lacks

many of the values traditionally ascribed to religion and doesn’t make

any value judgments about the use of scientific knowledge. On the other

hand, the very ability of science to function as it does, and so

successfully, is dependent upon a set of very important values. Some ofthose values are explained here.

Work & Discipline:

Science is a difficult field to be successful in. Nothing gets done in

science without a great deal of hard work, long hours, and the discipline

necessary to work those long hours. Very little in science can be

described as “glamorous” — most scientific work involves poring over

large amounts of data and tiny details that would make most people’seyes just glaze over. This work is necessary, however, because it builds

the foundations for new discoveries.

Honesty:

Every profession depends upon its members being honest for the

profession to function. In science this requirement can be even more

important. Many scientists work independently and their results are then

incorporated into the work of other scientists. Faulty data can thus takeon a life of its own, infecting the honest work of researchers around the

world. Fortunately there are systems in place to catch and eliminate

cheating, but they don’t always catch problems immediately.

Reason:

One of the most important values of science is the use of reason.

Problems aren’t assumed to be solved by tradition, faith, or simply

trusting someone’s word. The use of reason helps ensure that

http://atheism.about.com/bio/Austin-Cline-5577.htm






explanations and solutions are based upon reality rather than upon

personal preference, what is politically correct, or what is ideologically

convenient. Reason can of course be misused, but no more so than

anything else — and thus far, reason has proven to be more reliable than

anything else.

Community:

Although it’s common for scientists to work alone, science isn’t

really a solitary profession. Scientists are part of a larger scientific

community, one which encompasses both those in the same field and

those involved in other aspects of scientific research. All are interlinked,

such that the results reached by anyone may help the work of others. The

community also helps ensure the reliability of everyone’s work becauseto be properly scientific, research must be reviewed by peers.

Questioning Authority & Critical Thinking:

Although there are authority figures in science like there are in

every profession, this authority is not absolute. Scientists are encouraged

to question and challenge the claims and results which authority figures

offer. After all, the next biggest name in science will be someone who can

prove that an earlier theory was wrong, or at least incomplete, andtherefore that current authority figures have been mistaken. Every

scientist has a vested interest in questioning authority.

Imagination:

It’s common to think of scientists as focused on logic, but a very

good imagination can be more necessary to being a good scientist.

Imagination is important because it allows one to think of new

possibilities which may not be evident from the raw data alone.Imagination also allows one to develop new explanations which also

aren’t immediately supported by the data, and this provides an impetus

to look for the data. Often, it’s imagination that draws a person to science

in the first place.

Progress & Improvement:

One important feature of science is that it is never static. No

explanation is ever final or complete and there is always new data thathas be to explained, so there is never any feeling that the work of



scientists is finished. This means that scientists are always looking

towards improvement and progress at all times. Science works for the

betterment of humanity and society, helping us all move forward rather

than simply being content with where we are now.

Methodology Over Conclusions:

One value of science which many can miss is the emphasis on

focusing on proper methodology over conclusions. What this means is

that work must not be done for the sake of reaching particular and

favored conclusions. Instead, one must focus on following the proper

scientific methodology and reasoning. This helps guarantee that one is

more likely to arrive at the correct conclusions and correct explanations,

regardless of what they may be. Imagine if other fields, like politics,worked this way.

Godless Science and the Enlightenment:

Modern science is largely an outgrowth of the Enlightenment and

that, in turn, was a period when religious institutions and ecclesiastical

authorities began to really lose their power over most aspects of people’s

lives. The Enlightenment was thoroughly secular in that it did not derive

its impetus or principles from religious tradition or authority. The mostfundamental values of godless science are thus also the values of

modernity: skepticism, empiricism, and secularism. It’s not a coincidence

that science and modernity developed side-by-side: godless science has

reinforced secular modernity while secular modernity has provided the

atmosphere in which godless science could thrive.

What this means is that it isn’t possible to defend one without also

defending the other. Secular modernity won’t be able to proceed very far

without the reinforcing support which godless science is able to provide;godless science won’t be able to continue helping us understand the

world around us without the atmosphere created by secular modernity.

Not only do they need each other, but we need them as well: secular

modernity provides the freedom and room for people to follow their

consciences and explore their religious beliefs; godless science has

become invaluable to our survival as a species.

Science is often maligned for being godless, but godlessness is

largely why science is successful: being godless means that science is notbeholden to any religious ideology or perspective. If it were, then it



wouldn’t be truly free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Science is

also often maligned for lacking values, but science has many values —

it’s just that they are values which are fundamental to our secular,

godless modernity. It is this which most upsets critics because those

values are proving their superiority to the religious values which anti-modern ideologues would rather promote.



Myth: Science is a Religion for Atheists that

Requires Faith

Does Science Require as Much Faith as Religion,Christianity?


Myth:

Science is the atheists' religion for the modern world, like Christianity or

Islam, except that it is more superstitious and less refined. Atheists' belief in

science requires faith like religion, but atheists doesn't recognize and accept itsreliance on faith.

Response:

Throughout the course of modern history, science and the scientific

method have contributed substantially to the reduced scope of religious

claims about the world as well as the scope of religious authority.

Science has done far more to both explain the world around us and help

us improve our condition than millennia of religion. It's not surprising

that some religious believers resent this and among their response is to

deny that science is any different from religion.

An important aspect of this tactic is to insist that science doesn't

really provide objective knowledge about the world and that science

doesn't utilize a consistently reliable or proven method for acquiring

knowledge. Instead, science is supposed to be based on guesswork,

"theories," and false beliefs which are all inferior to "true" religions, like

Christianity, and their revelations from God, like the Bible.

There is a curious contradiction here because people who argue for

this myth end up involved in two efforts which should be recognized as

contrary: first, they have to denigrate science and argue that it really isn't

as good as defenders claims; second, they have to argue that science is

actually a type of religion which relies on faith, not unlike their own

religion uses faith.

Claiming that science is a religion is simply wrong because science

lacks the major characteristics which define religion1

and differentiatereligious belief systems from other belief systems. If we ignore that for a




http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/p/ScienceReligion.htm








moment, though, it doesn't make much sense to do this in the context of

denigrating science because that implies that one's own religion is also

inferior. It would be far more preferable to argue that one's own religion

is as good as science, and then that science is also a religion.

Why don't religious believers normally do this? The simple reasonis that they can't: the advances made by science, the benefits of science,

and reliability of science cannot be matched at any level by any religion2.

Religions have claimed for millennia that they have received special

information from gods, but at no point did any of those gods explain

how to utilize electricity, how to improve sanitation, the origins of

disease, and so forth. Much of this was already well underway even

during the earliest stages of modern science — it didn't even require a

fully developed scientific method or community for such progress to bemade.

To be fair, it can be argued that a certain amount of "faith" exists

with how average person accepts what science says. Few people are in a

position to confirm the results of modern scientific experiments so they

have to accept what others say based on their experience and authority.

Unlike with religion, however, anyone can in principle confirm those

experiments on their own — and the ability of others to repeat

experiments to make sure they are right is one of the things whichdefines the scientific method.

Moreover, most people can observe the practical impacts of what

science says and thus don't need to conduct experiments to confirm that

scientists are right. Not everyone is able to understand the theories

behind how electricity operates, but everyone is able to witness the

obvious and dramatic effects of electricity at work — both good and bad.

Some religious believers might claim the same on behalf of their

god, but there are many believers from many religions claiming the sameabout many different gods. Not all of those gods can exist, so not all of

the claimed "effects" can be attributed to real gods. Everyone, however,

uses the same electricity and sees the same effects of electricity. There

aren't alternative denominations of "energy" with competing claims

about what the "real" source of energy is. Thus the claims about gods and

their effects do have to be taken on faith, but the claims of science — like

for example the science of electricity — don't need to be taken on "faith"

in the same way.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofscience/p/ScienceSuperior.htm






Godless Science: Modern Science is Secular,

Godless, Based On Naturalism


Christian Attacks on Modern Science:

A primary target of the Christian Right in America is secular,

godless science. Modern science relies on methodological naturalism,

which means that it doesn’t incorporate any supernatural or religious

assumptions and doesn’t seek any religious or supernatural explanations

for natural phenomena. This outrages believers who think that theirreligious and theistic beliefs should be incorporated into everything in

life. In fact, though, modern science has to be secular and godless.

Godless Science Demands Evidence, not Faith:

All scientific explanations must ultimately be based on verifiable

evidence. Without evidence, a purported explanation may be little more

than speculation. In traditional religious and theistic systems, however,

claims and explanations are typically based upon faith — you eitheraccept them based upon faith or you do not. There is no presumption

that evidence exists or is even necessary. Indeed, if there were solid

evidence, faith would be irrelevant.

Godless Science Demands Critical Questioning, not Obedience:

Scientific progress would not occur if scientists were not

encouraged to question traditional assumptions, re-check older data, and

seek out anomalies which can lead to new, better explanations. Religiousand theistic systems, however, typically place far more emphasis on

obedience to authority and tradition, rejecting skeptical, critical

questioning of traditional beliefs. This helps religions preserve orthodox

beliefs over long periods of time while inhibiting progress.

Godless Science Demands Provisional Beliefs, Not Dogmas:

No matter how well supported by repeated evidence and

experimentation, all scientific explanations are technically provisional: it







is accepted that they could be overturned or expanded in the light of

new evidence. In religious and theistic systems, however, there is no

room made for the idea that beliefs are merely provisional. Since they are

not originally based on evidence, it is not contemplated that new

evidence will change anything. This is the basis for dogma and dogmaticbeliefs.

Godless Science Does Not Respect Tradition:

In science, the fact that a belief or explanation is traditional is

ultimately irrelevant. Science has been ruthless in its quest for better

explanations of natural phenomena and the history of science is littered

with the carcasses of traditional explanations found to be inadequate or

completely false. Religious and theistic systems, however, rely heavilyon tradition and are often focused upon preserving those traditions, even

against the pressures of secular, godless science.

Godless Science is Based Upon Godless Mathematics:

It is sometimes said that all science reduces to mathematics and

one unavoidable fact of math is that it is thoroughly secular and godless.

It’s curious that while many complain about “godless evolution,” they

never seem to notice that the mathematical foundation of science is moreruthlessly godless than anything else in life. No equations and no

mathematical systems ever take anything religious into account,

including gods. Religion and gods couldn’t possibly be more irrelevant

to math.

The Values of Godless Science are the Values of the Enlightenment:

Modern science is largely an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, a

period when religious institutions and ecclesiastical authorities began toreally lose their power over every aspect of people’s lives. The

Enlightenment was thoroughly secular in that it did not derive its

impetus or principles from religious tradition or authority. The same is

true for science today, which has inherited the Enlightenment’s values of

skepticism, empiricism, and secularism.

Godless Science is Not a Religion:

The power of science’s secular and godless methodology may bewhy some try to deny that science is secular and godless in the first



place. This is curious, since the same people usually use secular and

godless as criticisms. If godless is a bad thing, and science is a threat,

why not draw attention to the fact that science is godless and deny the

value to science completely — unless the hope is to somehow preserve

all the benefits of science while abandoning what makes those benefitspossible.

Godless Science is More Reliable than Religion:

With its naturalistic, secular, and godless methodology, modern

science has produced incalculably more information about how our

world works and how to make it better for us in the past few hundred

years than all religious and theistic systems in the previous several

millennia. There are probably more people alive today than have beenkilled because of religion, which is quite a feat. The advantages of

godless science can hardly be measured.

Good Science is Naturalistic & Materialistic, Therefore Godless:

Because modern science is methodologically naturalistic and

materialistic, it never considers any supernatural explanations or sources

of evidence. This doesn’t mean that science necessarily denies the

possible existence of anything supernatural, it just means that nothingsupernatural plays any role in anything science does. This also means,

therefore, that gods do not and cannot play any role in anything science

does. A god does not have to be supernatural, but the sorts of gods

which might qualify as “natural” — like the ancient Greek deities —

don’t factor into anyone’s thinking anymore, whether scientific or

otherwise.

This godlessness of modern science bothers a lot of people for

whom God or gods play a fundamental role in all their decisions,assumptions, values, and general living. There are people for whom the

absence of gods is inconceivable, and thus the absence of gods in science

simply makes no sense. One means by which some try to sneak gods into

the scientific process is through “values,” because it is alleged that

science has no intrinsic values. This is false, but it is true that science

lacks many of the values traditionally ascribed to religion and doesn’t

make any value judgments about the use of scientific knowledge.

This isn’t an appropriate place to bring gods into the picture,though, because gods are as irrelevant to making value decisions about



science as they are to the scientific process itself. No gods and no

religions are the least bit necessary to determining whether certain

research programs should go forward, or if they do, what should be

done about the information discovered.



Myth: Atheists Worship Science, Evolution

is Atheists' Creed, Darwin a Prophet

Atheists have Replaced God with Science, Religionwith Science


Myth:

Atheists worship science. Technology is their church, evolution is their

creed, Darwin is their prophet, and scientists are their high priests.

Response:

Religious theists who believe that everyone worships something

and has some sort of religion will at times conclude that atheists' religion

must be science. Science is not only secular and godless, but has also

been responsible for overturning many of the myths, doctrines, and

beliefs which have been fundamental to theistic religions. Science

conflicts with religions not because it is a religion itself, but because

religions typically conflict with reality. No one worships science, though.Science is probably the most important and influential institution

in the modern world. Utilizing the scientific method, it has provided

humanity with more knowledge, more benefits, and more advantages

than anything else in the past — including religion. Given the degree to

which science structures out lives, our futures, and other social

institutions, it's perhaps not surprising that some religious theists would

come to see parallels between the two — even to the point where they

think that science is serving some or all of the same functions thatreligion does for them and used to do for all of society.

None of the above makes science a religion, though. Definitions of

religion are usually separated into two categories: substantive and

functional. The substantive definitions seek to identify some basic

"essence" that exists in every religions; common choices include belief in

gods or belief in something "sacred." Although these definitions always

rely on something that doesn't apply to some religions, none of them

describe any "essence" of religion that applies to science.







Functional definitions of religion seek to identify the social,

political, or psychological functions which religions serve for human

beings. Common choices for this include providing social structure,

teaching morals, creating communities, etc. None of these really describe

science, either, though they can come somewhat close. Many of the socialinstitutions which do create social structure or create communities are

themselves heavily influenced by science. This isn't because science is

inherently religious, however, but because science in the modern world

cannot be ignored.

The idea that evolution is a "creed" for atheists and Charles Darwin

a "prophet" is based on the popular belief among conservative

evangelical Christians that evolution is anti-Christian and anti-God, even

though it's no more or less godless and secular than the rest of science.None of this is true, though. Atheists don't place any greater importance

on evolution than on other aspects of science; it's unlikely that atheists

would pay any special attention to evolution if it weren't for Christians

spending so much time and effort trying to undermine it in order to

promote their theological, political, and social agendas.

It is fair to say that atheists place a lot of trust and confidence in

science, but this isn't "faith" in the religious sense and how religious

theists typically use the concept. Atheists place their confidence inscience because it has repeatedly demonstrated how reliable it is. The

scientific method has proven to be an effective means for separating

truth from falsehood; during the relatively short period which science

has existed, it has accomplished far more than anything has — including

religions.

Modern science is largely an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, a

period when religious institutions and ecclesiastical authorities began to

really lose their power over most aspects of people’s lives. TheEnlightenment was thoroughly secular in that it did not derive its

impetus or principles from religious tradition or authority. The most

fundamental values of godless science are thus also the values of

modernity: skepticism, empiricism, and secularism. It’s not a coincidence

that science and modernity developed side-by-side: godless science has

reinforced secular modernity while secular modernity has provided the

atmosphere in which godless science could thrive.

What this means is that it isn’t possible to defend one without alsodefending the other. Secular modernity won’t be able to proceed very far



without the reinforcing support which godless science is able to provide;

godless science won’t be able to continue helping us understand the

world around us without the atmosphere created by secular modernity.

Not only do they need each other, but we need them as well: secular

modernity provides the freedom and room for people to follow theirconsciences and explore their religious beliefs; godless science has

become invaluable to our survival as a species.

Science is often maligned for being godless, but godlessness is

largely why science is successful: being godless means that science is not

beholden to any religious ideology or perspective. If it were, then it

wouldn’t be truly free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Science is

also often maligned for lacking values, but science has many values —

it’s just that they are values which are fundamental to our secular,godless modernity. It is this which most upsets critics because those

values are proving their superiority to the religious values which anti-

modern ideologues would rather promote.

These are all reasons to think highly of science and to try to protect

it from possible threats. None, however, are reasons to think that people

in any way "worship" science or treat it as a religion. It is even arguable

that science is less a belief system than a methodology: a method and

means for understanding what reality is rather than a set of doctrinesand dogmas which we are morally obligated to believe upon threat of

punishment.



Science is Not a Religion: Why Science and

Scientific Research are not Religions


Science, the Scientific Method, and Religion:

Calling science a religion should be instantly recognized as an

ideological attack rather than a neutral observation of facts. Sadly this is

not the case, and it has become far too common for critics of modern,

godless science to claim that it’s inherently a religion, thus hoping to

discredit scientific research when it contradicts genuine religious

ideology. Examining the characteristics which define religions as distinctfrom other types of belief systems reveals how wrong such claims are.

Belief in Supernatural Beings:

The most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is

belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods.

Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded

upon it. Does science involve belief in supernatural beings like gods? No

— many scientists are themselves theists and/or religious in variousways while many others are not. Science itself as a discipline and

profession is godless and secular, promoting no religious or theistic

beliefs.

Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:

Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and

times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the

existence of a supernatural realm. Many scientists, godless or not,probably have things, places, or times which they consider “sacred” in

the sense that they are venerated in some way. Does science itself

involve such a distinction? No — it neither encourages nor discourages

it. Some scientists may believe that some things are sacred, and others

won’t.

Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:







If people believe in something sacred, they probably have rituals

associated with it which are also sacred. A scientist who holds something

as “sacred” may engage in some sort of ritual or ceremony. As with the

very existence of a category of “sacred” things, however, there is nothing

about science which either mandates such a belief or excludes it. Somescientist participate in rituals and some don’t; there are no scientific

rituals, godless or otherwise.

Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:

Most religions preach a moral code which is typically based upon

whatever transcendental and supernatural beliefs are fundamental to

that religion. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that

morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Scientists havepersonal moral codes which they may believe have supernatural origins,

but those are not an inherent part of science. Scientists also have

professional codes which have purely human origins.

Characteristically Religious Feelings:

Perhaps the vaguest characteristic of religion is the experience of

“religious feelings” like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even

guilt. Religions encourage such feelings, especially in the presence ofsacred objects and places, and the feelings are typically connected to the

presence of the supernatural. Most scientists experience such feelings;

often, it’s a reason why they got involved in science. Unlike religions,

however, these feelings have nothing to do with the supernatural.

Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:

Belief in supernatural beings like gods doesn’t get you very far if

you can’t communicate with them, so religions which include suchbeliefs naturally also teach how to talk to them — usually with some

form of prayer or other ritual. Most scientists believe in a god and

therefore probably pray; other scientists don’t. Because there is nothing

about science which encourages or discourages belief in the

supernatural, there is also nothing about it which deals with prayer.

A Worldview & Organization of One’s Life Based on the Worldview:

Religions constitute entire worldviews and teach people how tostructure their lives in relation to their worldview: how to relate to



others, what to expect from social relationships, how to behave, etc.

Scientists have worldviews, and there are common beliefs among

scientists in America, but science itself doesn’t quite amount to a

worldview. It provides a basis to a scientific worldview, but different

scientists will arrive at different conclusions and incorporate differentelements.

A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:

A few religious people follow their religions in isolated ways; more

often than not religions involve complex social organizations of believers

who join each other for worship, rituals, prayer, etc. Scientists belong to a

variety of groups, many of which will be scientific in nature, but not all

the same groups. What’s important, though, is the fact that even thesescientific groups are not “bound together” by all of the above. There is

nothing in science which is even remotely like a church.

Who Cares? Comparing and Contrasting Science & Religion:

Modern science is necessarily godless because godlessness

provides science with the independence of religious ideologies which is

necessary to ruthlessly pursue the facts wherever they may lead. Modern

science is successful precisely because it strives to be independent ofideology and bias, even if only imperfectly. Unfortunately, this

independence is also the primary reason for attacks on it. When it comes

to people who insist that their religious and theistic beliefs be

incorporated into every aspect of their lives, the absence of those beliefs

in others’ lives becomes almost incomprehensible.

In the case of science, it isn’t just a few lives which are godless, but

an entire field of study which is obviously fundamental to the modern

world. It’s difficult for some people to reconcile their own dependenceon the fruits of modern science with the fact that science is

methodologically naturalistic, secular, and godless. Because of this, some

people deny that science needs to be godless and insist that their

personal religious or theistic beliefs start to be incorporated into the

scientific process. That they would effectively kill the means by which

science is successful either isn’t recognized or doesn’t matter — it’s their

ideology which matters and of course serving the goal of spreading that

ideology far and wide.



It is for this reason that attempts to label godless science as a

“religion” must not only be resisted, but outright rejected. The hope is

that if people perceive science as “just another religion,” then science’s

ideological independence will become forgotten, thus making it easier to

incorporate real religion into it. It’s strange that devout religiousfollowers would employ the “religion” label as an attack, but this merely

demonstrates their lack of principle and why they cannot be trusted.

Science doesn’t fit any scholarly definition of religion; portraying it as a

religion does, however, fit the ideological goals of anti-modern

ideologues.



Einstein's Luck: The Truth behind Some of

the Greatest Scientific Discoveries


A common perception of science tends to focus upon a few great

figures who stand out from the crowd, leading their colleagues to new

frontiers of discovery through the brilliance of their insights and tenacity

of their research. Although this is surely sometimes the case, it is perhaps

less often the true than most people assume. Many of those “great

figures” are probably not so great as history and tradition typically

describe.

Summary

Title: Einstein's Luck: The Truth behind Some of the Greatest

Scientific Discoveries

Author: John Waller

Publisher: Oxford University Press

ISBN: 0198607199

Pro:• Very well written and engaging prose - suitable for both lay

readers and experts

• Highly informative on the history and philosophy of science

Con:

• None

Description:

• Explores myth and reality in the history of science







• Explains the difference between how science is done and the

ideals most people hold

• Exposes the truth behind many of the most important scientific

discoveries

Book Review

That is a basic lesson readers will derive from John Waller’s

recently published Einstein’s Luck: The Truth behind Some of the Greatest

Scientific Discoveries. A Research Fellow at the Wellcome Trust Centre for

the History of Medicine at University College London, Waller takes us

on an expansive tour of modern scientific research and discovery,

illuminating many dark passages and unpleasant situations where thepursuit of scientific truth has too often taken a back seat to self-

aggrandizement and the pursuit of fame.

“Until recent decades, the history of science was largely written by

those who wished to place their chosen subject in as favourable a light as

possible. The motivations were various. Sometimes they worked at the

behest of individual scientists who wanted to make sure that their part in

the great drama of discovery did not go unsung. In other cases, the key

requirement was a good story. More laudably generations of teachers of scientific subjects have wanted heroes for much he same reason that Livy

gave the Roman Horatio: to inspire by example.”

[...]

“Although the eventual outcome of a research programme may be a

fabulously rich collection of well-attested and highly predictive ideas, the

route to this happy state is often far more convoluted than subsequent

accounts will allow.”

Some potential readers might assume that Waller’s goal is to trash

science, but that would be a mistake. His agenda might be rather

iconclastic, but ultimately he hopes to get people to better understand

science as a very human process — and this means that science is often

plagued by all of the same flaws and problems that afflict human beings

and their other various endeavors, like politics or art.

Scientists are not dispassionate or disinterested observers. They

care deeply about the subjects they are investigating and nearly asdeeply about the theories they have for explaining the data they uncover.



This is not a bad thing — after all, if it weren’t for that passion, no one

would care enough to do the work in the first place. As much as

anything else, science is driven by stubborn pigheadedness: a person or

persons who tenaciously cling to their theories and ideas, relentlessly

pursuing data and research in the hopes of coming across clues whichmight prove them right.

In the end, however, they still have to submit their data and ideas

to others for review. If the only support they end up producing is their

own faith, then their field will move on without them. If, however, their

stubborn tenacity has led them to interesting data that no one else has

come across, then they will be vindicated. Thus, no matter how dogmatic

an individual may be, the system itself tends to remain very undogmatic

and disinterested.What this means is that while the ends may look niceand neat, the actual process does not go along quite as scientists and

others imagine that it should.

The ideals of science may have value and they can serve to lead us

on the proper path, but it would be wrong to assume that reality very

often matches those ideas. This is demonstrated over and over as Waller

examines the actual historical record of numerous “luminaries” o f

science, researchers and scientists whose work is generally regarded

both inside and outside scientific circles as having revolutionized howwe live and/or how we view the world.

Included among those whose reputations and history are given a

closer look are Louis Pasteur (he suppressed data that didn’t fit his

ideas), Joseph Lister (who had a high rate of death due to unsanitary

conditions in his hospital wards), Arthur Eddington (who ignored two-

thirds of his data when testing Einstein’s theory of relat ivity), and

Alexander Fleming (who played almost no role in the development of

penicillin).Two topics covered in the book which might be of interest to

nonbelievers are the chapter on the famous debate between Thomas

Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, and the chapter on the

introduction of anaesthesia to women going through child labor. In both

cases, the common beliefs of not only atheists and skeptics but also

others in society are likely wrong.

With regards to the debate over evolution between Huxley and

Wilberforce that occurred in June, 1860, the most common belief seemsto be that Huxley wiped the floor with Wiberforce’s arguments, showing



his opposition to evolution as unthinking, unreasoned, and

unintellectual. The reality, however, may be quite different. There is

evidence that Huxley was not a very effective speaker, that Wilberforce

and his supporters walked away with the feeling that their ideas carried

the day, and that many who watched the debate or heard about it laterconcluded that Darwin’s ideas rested upon a shoddy foundation.

With regards to the use of anaesthesia in obstetrics, it is widely

believed that there were fierce religious objections to this on the grounds

that God had ordained in the Bible that women must endure pain when

delivering a child. Trying to relieve that pain was thus to be regarded as

a violation of God’s plan. But the evidence for such objections is lacking

to say the least. James Young Simpson wrote a response to such anti-

anaesthesia arguments, but it seems more likely that he was answeringhis own doubts and perhaps forestalling objections that might arise in

the future. But they never did and no one really cared.

The title of this book is misleading because there is very little about

Einstein in the whole work; aside from the Eddington experiments,

you’ll struggle to find any mention of the physicist who serves as an

example of how a scientist can experience brilliant insight about how the

world works. That aside, this is a wonderfully written book with very

readable and lively prose — its audience will be anyone from the curiouslay reader to research scientists who would like to go back and review

some of the faulty history of science they were once taught. Indeed, I

wouldn’t be surprised to see this put on the reading list for classes in the

History or Philosophy of Science.





The problem here seems to me to lie in the failure to understand that we

have three prongs to deal with: science as an ideal, science as an

institution, and science as it is actually practiced by individual, working

scientists. Science as an ideal requires a willingness to question

assumptions and an open mind — it is, essentially, just as Carl Sagandescribed it. Science as an institution doesn’t actually achieve that ideal

but it probably comes about as close as any human institution can be

expected to. There are failures and flaws, to be sure, but all evidence

indicates that they are worked out in the long run.

Individual scientists, however, fall even farther short of the ideals.

In practice scientists are just as pig-headed and closed-minded as the

average human being. Moreover, science is not truly objective and

dispassionate when it comes to the individual scientists — after all, if itweren’t for passionate commitment to some idea or theory, many

scientists would probably find work in some better-paying field or

position. They do what they do because they love it; sometimes, though,

their passion can lead them to defend ideas which are past their prime.

So how does science as an institution come anywhere close to the

ideals of science when individual scientists fall so far short? Where the

ideal and practice meet can be found in the concept of peer review. In the

end, all scientists have to submit their data and ideas to others forreview. If the only support they end up producing is their own faith,

then their field will move on without them. If, however, their stubborn

tenacity has led them to interesting data that no one else has come

across, then they will be vindicated. Thus, no matter how dogmatic an

individual may be, the system itself tends to remain very undogmatic

and disinterested.

Other human institutions and endeavors are not incapable of

establishing the same sorts of standards and achieving the same sorts ofsuccess as science, but it will be difficult. Not all endeavors are

ultimately based upon the replication of hard data — and it is the data,

after all, which does the most to weed out the good ideas in science from

the bad. An even more common problem is the inability to genuinely

submit all positions to critical review.

Anyone who can decisively overturn an established theory in

science and set their field on an entirely new course will have an uphill

battle, but if successful their name will be listed among the greatestfigures in scientific history. In other arenas, like religion, such people



may forever be remembered as heretics and schismatics — if

remembered favorably, it will only ever be by their followers. Religion

doesn’t reward criticism and questioning like science does and that’s an

important difference.



Baruch Spinoza on MiraclesIgnorance vs. Philosophy in the Study of Gods,

ReligionBy Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Do miracles exist? Religious believers certainly think that they do

and are rarely pleased when philosophers or scientists attempt to study

alleged miracles. The presumption is that while they exist, they must

nevertheless remain mysteries which people believe in based upon faith.

We are expected to accept on faith that apparent violations of natural

laws are the workings of some god.Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles, and to understand

the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in

astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and

proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of

nature and the gods. For these men know that, once ignorance is put

aside, that wonderment would be taken away, which is the only means by

which their authority is preserved.

-- Baruch Spinoza, Ethics (1677)There are many fronts on which science and religion conflict. It

may be true that many religious believers don't perceive the need for any

such conflict, but the reality is that the conflict exists — and in this

quotation, Spinoza seems to hit on one of the primary reasons why, a

reason that seems to apply across a broad range of individual debates

and problems.

For a long time people explained events in the world around them

through religion and religious mythology. Religion provided certaintyand stability in an uncertain world — and it also provided employment

to those who would be religious leaders, keepers of traditional wisdom

and beliefs. Empirical science, however, conflicts with this and causes no

end of problems for the structure of religious tradition.

Science provides far better explanations for natural events than

religion ever could, but at the same time it demonstrates that stability

and certainty are more illusory than real. Science, after all, doesn't give

us absolute and certain answers; instead, it gives us answers that are







probabilistic and should only be accepted so long as the evidence allows.

People who become scientists, who are willing to live with uncertainty,

and who want to understand the nature of reality even if that threatens

traditional religious beliefs, represent serious threats to religion and

religious leaders.Science also represents a deeper threat to religion because science

thrives on questioning assumptions and challenging institutionalized

beliefs. Religion, however, relies upon keeping people from doing that

too much. It's not as though religion dismisses all challenges and

questions, but it is the case that religion typically rejects the sorts of

challenges and methodologies fundamental to the scientific process. In

effect, a good scientist would have a great deal of difficulty in holding on

to a very traditional religious system unless they are able to socompletely compartmentalize the two that they never interact in a

significant way.

It is worth noting that Spinoza wrote the above in a book on ethics.

There is a strong argument for the idea that scientific principles aren't

just good science, but also good ethics as well. Don't we have some

ethical duty to seek out a greater understanding of reality using the best

tools available? Don't we have some ethical duty to the truth wherever it

may lie, even if the truth conflicts without beliefs, prejudices, traditions,and customs?

If any of this is the case, then religion and religious attitudes can

conflict with some of our ethical duties — duties to ourselves and our

need to better understand our world. Religious belief systems may claim

to put a high value on the truth, but typically only within the context of

certain religious dogmas that are supposed to be exempt from

questioning or challenges. You can't genuinely value truth and

skepticism if you exempt certain ideas from the truth-seeking processotherwise generally used.

Miracles may be pleasant to believe in, but miracles don't cure

diseases, don't clean up pollution, and don't provide the means for us to

live better lives. At most, belief in miracles provide a comforting

reassurance about the stability of a divinely-ordered universe in the face

of a very disordered human society, but that will only be appealing to

people who prefer comforting beliefs regardless of their logical or

empirical basis.



Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?


Debates about the compatibility of science and religion are regular

features in academic discussions. On the one side we have those who

argue that there isn't any conflict, perhaps because the two deal with

different issues or because true religion is always in accordance with

reality as described by science. Others insist that religion and science

operate from fundamentally different methodologies and will inevitably

bump up against each other, usually with negative consequences.

Summary

Title: Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?

Author: edited by Paul Kurtz & Barry Karr

Publisher: Prometheus Books

ISBN: 1591020646

Pro:

• Many topics covered by many famous authors

I• mportant contribution to an important debate

Con:

• No index

Description:

• Essays addressing the question of whether science and religion

are compatible

• Most essays stem from a 2001 symposium on the topic

Book Review

For a long time, the dominant viewpoint at least among scientists

has been that science and religion are incompatible. In recent years the

opposite viewpoint has tended to be more popular and there has been

quite a lot of money available for scholars interested in arguing in favor

of the pro-compatibility position. Leading scientists continue to be

skeptical of this, often opposing the efforts of large religious foundationsto advance their agendas.







The recently published Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? is

an outgrowth of a “Science and Religion” symposium held in Atlanta in

2001. Edited by Paul Kurtz and Barry Karr, this book collects not only

papers that were delivered at that meeting, but also highly relevant

works that have appeared elsewhere. Contributors include Sir Arthur C.Clarke, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Kendrick Frazier, Martin

Gardner, Owen Gingerich, Stephen Jay Gould, James Lovelock, Steven

Pinker, Eugenie Scott, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Weinberg, and many

more.

A few of the authors defend the thesis that science and religion are

compatible — for example, we can read Stephen Jay Gould’s now-

famous essay “Nonoverlapping Magisteria,” excerpted from his book

Leonardo’s Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms , in which he arguesthat science and religion can be compatible so long as they restrict

themselves to their proper and appropriate domains of inquiry.

Most authors, however, argue quite strongly that science and

religion are not compatible and that one or the other must give way. Paul

Kurtz expresses a common theme when he writes in his introduction:

“There is a profound difference between science and religion in its

conception of truth. Science requires an open mind, free inquiry, criticalthinking, the willingness to question assumptions, and peer review. The

test of a theory or hypothesis is independent (or at least one would hope)

of bias, prejudice, faith, or tradition; and it is justified by the evidence,

logical consistency, and mathematical coherence. Science claims to be

universal... transcending specific cultures and replicable in any and every

laboratory in the world.”

It is worth noting that while Kurtz correctly speaks of what science requires, he does not and cannot speak about what religion requires. It

would not be true that religion requires a closed mind, opposition to free

inquiry, and gullible thinking. In practice religion normally can be

characterized in that way, but it is not absolutely necessary in order to be

a religion.

The real problem between science and religion lies in the

comparison of science as an ideal and religion as it is practiced. Scienceas an ideal requires a willingness to question assumptions and an open



mind, but in practice scientists are just as pig-headed and closed-minded

as the average human being. Science is not truly objective and

dispassionate when it comes to the individual scientists; where the ideal

and practice do meet, however, is when it comes to peer review.

In the end, all scientists have to submit their data and ideas toothers for review. If the only support they end up producing is their own

faith, then their field will move on without them. If, however, their

stubborn tenacity has led them to interesting data that no one else has

come across, then they will be vindicated. Thus, no matter how dogmatic

an individual may be, the system itself tends to remain very undogmatic

and disinterested.

When comparing science and religion, what should we place on

the side of science: the ideal or the reality? That’s a difficult question toanswer. The choice of the ideal is entirely reasonable, but there are good

arguments for picking the reality — that is, after all, the way actual

scientists go about their daily work. On the other hand, the ideals of

science are expressed a great deal in the overall structure of science, so

it’s not as though the ideal is just a dream.

And what do we place on the side of religion — ideal or reality? If

we are comparing the ideal of science, it seems unfair not to use the ideal

of religion. However, while we are able to identify some sort of scientificideal, there doesn’t appear to be any religious ideal. Every religion is

different, and even within religions there is extensive variation. All we

really have is the reality of religion — and that reality is very different

from not only the ideal of science, but also the reality.

This probably isn’t necessary. As stated above, it isn’t a

requirement of religion to be closed-minded, to avoid questioning

assumptions, and to reject peer review. It may be the norm, but it doesn’t

have to be. What this means is that whether religion and science arecompatible depends upon religious believers. If they submit their beliefs

to scientific standards of inquiry, then compatibility will exist.

Otherwise, it cannot.

Addressing topics such as intelligent design, creationism,

sociobiology, the nature of the soul, and near-death experiences, this is a

great collection of essays that anyone interested in this topic should read.

The articles are detailed without being dense, informative without being

dry.

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lfbarbal1949
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Values of Godless Science

Documents