Molly Farmer of Mormon Times today (May 10, 2009) posted a piece entitled, "Make Room for God in the Sciences – Again." In the article she reported on a presentation to the most recent conference of the Mormon Scholars in the Humanities by David Collingridge (well-known and respected in the LDS blog world). The article poses the question: Does God belong in science? Has science rejected the Creator? Such questions raise large unanswered problems. In short, my answer to these questions is: God belongs in the scientist, but NOT in science. (See my previous essay: "Some Thoughts on Science and Religion").
Science has NO set of tools for utilizing the concept of God. Any attempt to bring God into play would potentially demean both nature and deity. Further, forcing the concept of God into science would raise a great potential misuse and abuse of both science and religion. For plenty of examples of such, one can refer to almost any page in William Paley's Natural Theology (1802).
Scientists are predominantly non-LDS. How does one pitch God using science? Which God? Could theistic scientists agree upon which generic God? NEVER. Which set of scriptures should be used? Which theological interpretation?
The issue of bringing God into science is specious. There is good intention behind this promotion, but ultimately it is a bad idea. The purity of the gospel is best taught at church and at home.
There is an oft forgotten issue: Modern science is a collaborative enterprise. Collections of scientists often work as teams to bring about a scientific finding. Thus, science cannot efficiently be in the business of promoting specific theologies or a particular view of God. We should NOT forget Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some of the main issues are nicely summarized by Religious Freedom Resources:
**Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
** Employees cannot be required to participate -- or refrain from participating – in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
**Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
Scientific laboratories are often a place of employment wherein religious issues should be kept to a minimum (in order to preserve religious rights, not diminish them).
Keep in mind that scientific publications often have a dozen authors. It would be horrible if a contributing scientist were kept off a publication because of disagreements about God. It would not just be horrible; it would be illegal.
It does NOT hurt for scientists (as people) to become INFORMED theologians, but the concept of God does NOT belong in scientific explanation, because God explains EVERYTHING and therefore nothing. The concept of God changes no scientific equations. It changes NO data points. The name of God would be devalued by becoming nothing but filler text – such as "2 + 2 = 4; praise be to G _ _." The concept of God has no bearing in any widely recognized science.
Science evolves quickly. It is fine for individuals to find science God-inspiring, but we always must beware that scientific findings are often tentative. God is not tentative. We do NOT rebuild God based upon better data from a science experiment. Building God upon a scientific theory is truly building upon a foundation of sand that is bound to collapse.
Part of the motivation for the Mormon Times article is the implication that scientists would be better off if God were incorporated into it.
Actually, my religion has carried me farther than I could go in science than without religion, but I would NEVER claim my religion has made me a better scientist than those who are non-LDS. Mormons make great scientists, but I know of no Nobel Prize winning Mormon scientists. Perhaps Henry Eyring came the closest.
Personal issues aside, I see NO evidence that Mormon scientists in general are advantaged by their religion in the practice of science, only in their personal life. Conversely, there is NO evidence that religion provides a disadvantage in science either.
My essay here is NOT to suggest that scientists do not need religion. I think they do. I think religion plays an essential role in life overall. But, it is important to realize that MANY scientists have this view.
First of all, many scientists are actively involved in their religions. As usual, it is best to rely upon data. An important sociological study was recently published concerning the religiosity of scientists (see: E.H. Ecklund, J.Z. Park, & P.T. Veliz, 2008, “Secularization and religious change among elite scientists,” Social Forces, 86: 1805-1839). In 2005 this study sampled scientists from 21 “elite” universities regarding their religious affiliation and attendance. The percent of biologists (N = 248) and psychologists (N = 183) who considered themselves religiously affiliated was 37% and 52%, respectively. Of the biologists, 15% attended religious services each month or greater, and 29% attended several times per year. Of the psychologists, 16% attended religious services each month or greater, and 31% attended several times per year.
Ecklund et al. concluded: "While regular religious attendance has decreased overall, the proportion of natural and social scientists who attend sporadically has increased dramatically in some of the natural and social science disciplines." They further concluded: “academic scientists … are as a whole not entirely abandoning their involvement in religious organizations.”
I teach in a non-LDS university far from Utah. It is NOT religiously sponsored, but it has an official policy to release students for religious holidays. It recognizes and appreciates religious diversity in students. Religious organizations play active roles on campus. Religious ministers are invited to teach courses (for credit) on campus. The campus has a prominent non-denominational chapel on campus, and multiple churches surround the perimeter. This university is little different from what would be seen at other non-affiliated universities.
Unfortunately, religious behavior is sometimes stereotyped as an intellectual impairment. Such a stereotype, like many others, needs to be extinguished. If religious scientists are in honest pursuit of the truth (and virtually they all are), then religion is NO impairment at all to scientific progress.
In my limited view, the concept of God is growing. It is NOT going away. There are components of society that may be truly godless. "Godlessness" is NOT a word that fairly characterizes intellectual society at large, even if there are pockets of such.
Should we be teaching theology at the same time we are teaching science? The problem is that theology provides preconceptions, and preconceptions always can be supported by poor scholarship and vague evidence. Science is the act of setting aside ALL theological preconceptions.
The good news is that nature tells the truth, even if it sometimes mumbles. Why is there a need for theology to supplement it?
I know many religious scientists. As such, I would never call scientific engagement as "godless." But, the concept of God is sacred and needs to be kept outside of scientific notebooks.
Those who hope that someday religion will drive science are driving up a dead end. Evolution will continue to be taught. White light is a mix of all the colors of the rainbow. The earth is round and NOT at the center of the universe.
One's brand of religion cannot change the basic facts.
Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
15 comments:
Using a modern definition of science you are right of course. Historically the distinction was not so clear cut.
You can't do theology in science classes. However, classical metaphysics is extraordinarily relevant to this area. Just because the modern world largely neglects the intersection of theology and natural philosophy doesn't mean there isn't two millennia of rather extensive thought on the subject - from Aristotle to Descartes, roughly speaking.
Mark D:
I must admit I am NOT a fan of metaphysics in general, depending upon how one defines metaphysics.
The study of natural origins, mind, and space is best left to science. Anything else tends to lean on mysticism, which as far as I am concerned is the study of wheel spinning -- the art of getting no where fast.
S.Faux,
A lengthy and ascerbic diatribe against recognizing God, indeed.
You are blurring the lines between what I am calling for and what is unacceptable in science.
I am not calling for theocratic science. I am not calling for natural theology in science. I am not calling for intelligent design or creationism. Nor am I calling for hypothesizing God in science.
If you oppose what I am calling for then you oppose the way in which Newton, Galileo, and Descartes recognized God in their most influential and scientifically rigorous treatises.
Thanks for the attention anyway. As they say in Hollywood, even negative publicity is "good" publicity.
Cheers.
Dave C:
Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, I am against natural theology in science, because it inevitably is built upon preconceptions not driven by a fair representation of the data.
But, I would love to read your full paper. I hope you will post the full reference when it becomes available.
Second comment to Dave C.:
I should emphasize that I am only reacting to the Mormon Times article which may not have represented your positions very well.
Most of my essay is provoked by the questions: Does God belong in science? Has science rejected the Creator?
I would very much like to read your full paper. And, please understand I am NOT as grumpy as I sound.
I love thinking about your alternate positions that you have posted on your blog, and I feel like there would be much to learn from you. Even so, I think we have different philosophical positions.
Best wishes...
We can include God in science by at least giving *Him* praise instead of Darwin for the marvels of the natural world.
Jack
Anonymous (Jack):
Thanks for responding. I am all for praising God, but I think science is NOT the forum for doing so.
By the way, I am NOT against looking up at the sky and being overcome by the beauty and awe of God's creation. There is nothing wrong with that, except in calling that spiritual reaction as a form of science.
S. Faux,
This was great! I think people misunderstand science and it's role and things like Dave C.'s article don't help. I know many scientists that believe in God and practice their faith, including evolutionary biologists, in the full sense of the word. Dave misunderstands the role that science plays and how it progresses. Lot's of scientists are believers in every sense Galileo and Descartes were.
(I notice that in none of his science publications does he praise God for the successful knowledge gained through his experiments. So he does not seem to practice what he preaches.)
Despite his claims that he is not calling for a theistic science there is no other way to read his blog or paper and come away with any other conclusion. Dave has spent a lot of effort trying to convince other members of the church that biology and the church are incompatible, that the BYU biology department as gone astray, and that science needs a course correction and "God is not pleased" with science.
Thank goodness there are people like you explaining how science works and why its methods matter. I absolutely love the things you write. I'm going to use several for my history and philosophy of biology course. Thank you! You do a lot of good in the world.
Steve P said: Dave misunderstands the role that science plays and how it progresses.
More drivel about me from distinguished professor Peck.
I have studied and written on the history and philosophy of science, and Mr. Peck still insists on running around saying that I do not understand science.
What he says about me is akin to someone accusing him on not truly understanding biology and evolution, his 2 areas of expertise.
Steve Peck said: notice that in none of his science publications does he praise God for the successful knowledge gained through his experiments. So he does not seem to practice what he preaches.)
Hey, Peck. If you had actually gone to the presentation you would have heard me say that I would not want to inject God given the current environment. I admitted it in my presentation, which is why he did not see God mentioned in my publications!
Peck, your on a journey to discredit me with ad hominem attacks and whatever you can find.
Get a grip!
Sorry S. Faux I did not mean to spill this poisonous disagreement onto your page.
Dave, I apologize to you. You are right I did not hear your presentation. And I do need to get a grip. So fear not, I am disengaging.
Dave C. and SteveP:
It is nice to see BYU professors fight just like the non-LDS ones. ;)
Actually, I am extremely impressed with the academic expertise of both of you. I would love to sit on your classes -- except I am halfway across the nation.
Dave C., please know I do not mind praising God using scientific findings, but such a process of praise is NOT science, no matter what label you put in front of the word.
Nonetheless, I think there is an important academic role for challengers of science -- lest we scientists lose our humility through our successes.
SteveP, the BYU Biology Department is going no where. Gravity is gravity -- therefore the Physics Department is solid; Evolution and genetics is what it is -- therefore the Biology Department is solid.
Critics can criticize, but the facts are going no where.
We LDS scientists have a 100 year history behind us -- with a lot of success. It is safe to bet the Church will NOT be punishing that success.
There is NO Church with a greater interest in ORIGINS than the LDS Church. I have said it a million times and I intend to say it a million times more. To me, evolution is like doing genealogy, and I am uplifted by it. Not everyone sees things the way I do, but ... I love the fact that Mormons can have diverse views that push the boundaries of knowledge.
My BEST WISHES to both of you, and thanks for reading.
Now I am going back to grading my non-LDS students' papers which involve a critique of Steven Pinker -- which is sort of a love-hate relationship.
The calm voice of wisdom . . .
Dave C. & SteveP:
By the way, you have my FULL permission to slam me any day and in any way, even on my BLOG.
Somedays, I am sure I deserve it.
I'm late to the party, but nice post.
Post a Comment