Is There a Place for God in a Scientific Culture?
encompass a full and enriched life.
Click to enlarge.
Preface: Should human life be filled with nothing but logic, uncolored by intuition and emotion? If the tinkering designer of the brain could be consulted, then the answer would appear to be in the negative. True, the brain has internal logic. For example, specific wiring for trigonometric computation is required for three-dimensional (stereoscopic) vision. Such computations occur beneath the surface of consciousness. Even so, the human brain does not consciously solve problems using algorithms like those found in a computer. It solves problems governed by rules from experience, called heuristics -- and heuristics can be filled with intuition, spirituality, emotion, … and even wisdom.
There is an inherent tension between the pinpoint accuracy of algorithms and the ballpark estimates of heuristics. This tension was a running theme in the humorous dialogue of the Star Trek series. In an early TV episode called "Errand of Mercy," the following banter revealed Spock's penchant for impractical precision:
Captain Kirk: What would you say the odds are on our getting out of here?
Spock: It is difficult to be precise, Captain. I should say approximately 7824.7 to one.
Kirk: Difficult to be precise? 7824 to one?
Spock: 7824.7 to one.
Kirk: That's a pretty close approximation.
Spock: I endeavour to be accurate.
Kirk: You do quite well.
If the Vulcan mind were better prepared to understand the limits of the human mind, then Spock might have described the "odds of survival" by saying something like, "Extraordinarily bad, Captain." Algorithms (such as those coming from Spock's mind) can paint a bleak and stark picture of the world. Heuristics (such as those coming from the mind of Kirk) can paint with a glimmer of hope, even if the hope comes from one chance out of thousands.
The USS Enterprise starship was successful on TV and in its fictional world because it had the synergy of a Kirk and a Spock. Similarly, my ideal world would be filled with both logic (Spocks) and hope (Kirks), often mixed in the same person.
By contrast, an atheistic world of pure logic without purpose or hope would seem rather stale to me. As such, I would argue humans achieve their highest level of psychological fulfillment when guided by the positive values of both science and religion. Both science and religion can contribute positively to an enlightened world.
There is nothing like being cut up by a surgeon and having one's body parts repaired like an old car. I now have a three-inch incision in my shoulder where my highly skilled surgeon (a well-trained scientific orthopedist) rebuilt my shoulder so that I could raise my right arm over my head.
As I heal, the concept of resurrection has become more glorious. There is nothing like physical mortality to remind one of the little benefits of rotating one's arm.
This latest physical struggle has prompted my thoughts on science and religion. Why?
Given the complexities of the shoulder, it took significant scientific accomplishment to rebuild it in a living human being – that is, me. Naturally, I wanted the best surgeon, the one most highly trained in medical science, and the one most highly skilled with his hands. His religion (or possible lack thereof) did not matter to me on the day of the operation. What mattered were my surgeon's medical training, his experience, and the steadiness of his hands.
The next day, while recovering at home, I was visited by my Home Teacher, who also happened to be the Stake Patriarch. Having been anointed with consecrated oil, three sets of hands were then placed on my head, and I was given a most beautiful blessing of health. At that moment, I needed religion more than science. My perspectives needed to be twisted from the self to my community and my religion.
The blessing was NOT an act of superstition; rather, it WAS a supplement to the medical operation. The blessing reminded me of higher powers, of friendships, and of the network of support built within the Church. It involved a ritual, with a set of procedures that symbolized a larger purpose in life.
Thus, my right arm in a sling has come to represent two dimensions of highest priority to me: my science and my religion.
I have been thinking about the battle between Alma and the "Anti-Christ" Korihor, depicted in the Book of Mormon (Alma ch. 30). Fortunately, for the people of the land of Zarahemla "there was no law against a man's belief" (Alma 30:11). The land had considerable freedoms. For example,
Alma 30:9
9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
Perhaps it was in this context that I was motivated to learn more about opposing belief systems.
Having little ability to move, it was as if I decided to be psychologically uncomfortable as well. I sat in front of my computer and listened to Richard Dawkins sing the praises of atheism. Dawkins is a famous theoretical scientist from Oxford, a evolutionary biologist, and an active proponent of atheism. He has established the "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science," with the mission of supporting research into the "psychological basis of unreason" (which to him means attraction to religion), supporting scientific education, promoting humanitarian charities "not associated with religious institutions or missions," promoting atheism through the "Out Campaign," and encouraging parents NOT to raise children in religion until they are old enough to make their own decisions.
Dawkins is NOT for abandoning culture associated with religion. For example, he loves religious music, such as Bach. However, he argues that religious belief is detrimental to scientific progress. Further, parents should not promote religion by identifying religion as part of their legacy of belief.
To me, such arguments are unsound and make little sense. The remainder of this essay will be a counter-argument.
Is there a place for God in a culture often dominated by science?
First, I would refer the reader to my essay: "Scientists ignore theology but are not godless." This essay argues why the concept of God has little applicability in the practice of science. However, scientists are often deeply embedded within religion. Given the success of science, it is hard to imagine how science would be improved if scientists stopped attending worship services. In fact, it would not be improved. Science lacks a theology in order to avoid preconceptions, to maintain objectivity, and to be a truly independent source of converging validity. None of these issues implies a benefit of NOT attending Church or worship services.
Study the figure at the top of this essay. It is a kind of Cartesian plane. Imagine a universe of science and religion that is divided up into axes based on methods and outcomes. If we did so, then we would find that science and religion generally existed on a continuum of diametric opposites. This is NOT to suggest science and religion are incompatible, but it is to suggest they are extremely distinct in some features. And, those distinctions could be graphed.
The vertical axis: Scientific methods are generally objective, empirical, concrete, and subject to public substantiation. Religious methods are generally subjective, spiritual, abstract, and subject only to private substantiation. Given the axes of the top figure, religious activities would tend to graph toward the bottom, and scientific activities would tend to graph toward the top.
The horizontal axis: Any activity can exist on a continuum of being applied or theoretical. "Applied" ideas often exist in the form of specific technologies with immediate consequences. "Theoretical" ideas may have no immediate application, but continue their expression in the form of ritual, guided by a faith that consequences will be forthcoming.
My graph merely admits to different forms of thinking and places them in contrast. Further, there is overlap. Not all religious activities are anti-scientific, and not all scientific activities are anti-religious. Science is mostly public and religion is mostly private, but these features are envisioned as a continuum, not discrete categories.
Below is a plot of how various activities might fit in this graphic universe. If one plotted enough activities, then one would see science & religion blur on the edges. There would be separation between the two, but the separation would NOT be entirely clean.
might be placed in this axial universe.
Click to enlarge.
My point is that science and religion support one another, and at a minimum they blend within individuals. We are psychologically built for multiple forms of thinking, some of which are outward (scientific) and some of which are inward (spiritual).
A full and rich life is NOT homogenized. We should NOT all become "Spocks" full of relentless and emotionless logic that denies other forms of knowledge. To remove religion from the culture of inquiry would be like removing the heart from the human being. The overall organism would die.
Let me be specific. Atheistic nations have failed to demonstrate staying power or durability. It has been predominantly religious nations that have contributed to scientific understanding (even if science and religion have been at warfare at times).
Eliminating any pole in my hypothetical universe causes damage or does unnecessary harm.
While it may be true that religions naturally have ideas that are untestable and unfalsifiable, an unbounded rational religion would not require individuals to believe in false ideas. My ideal universe would NOT have religions that denied gravity, mathematics, or demeaned minority groups. A religion that steered people away from the natural world as it is found in existence would be counterproductive. Modern religion, however, can be very productive.
The unmitigated success of natural science surrounds us and touches us everyday. We watch our televisions; we type on our computers; we drive our cars; we turn off our house lights to view DVDs; we get our vaccinations to keep from getting sick; and we take our antibiotics when we do get sick.
Wherein has religion had its success?
Religious ways are sometimes viewed as primitive, but that is a stereotype. Religious behavior has been a central element of human civilization from the beginning.
I cannot help but think of the little Catholic chapel in my local hospital. It is a quiet and serene place where patients or families of patients can meditate and pray. It seldom has large numbers of people, but it is seldom empty as well. Inside is a chaplain ready to be of assistance.
I well know how illness brings individuals to contemplate the deeper aspects of existence and non-existence. And, I appreciate how there are individuals (the chaplains of the world) who stand in the ready to assist others in time of need.
The stereotype of religious individuals is that they are mentally weak, having bought into the opiate of the masses. My experience could not be more contrary. The most mentally strong individuals I have ever met would describe themselves as religious to the core. How would one scientifically demonstrate this mental strength?
To those who doubt that ritual is needed in a modern age, I will end with this quote from a non-LDS scholar well known in comparative religious theory:
Jonathan Z. Smith (University of Chicago Press, 1992): To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual, p. 109.
"[R]itual represents the creation of a controlled environment where the variables (the accidents) of ordinary life may be displaced precisely because they are felt to be so overwhelmingly present and powerful. Ritual is a means of performing the way things ought to be in conscious tension with the way things are. Ritual relies for its power on the fact that it is concerned with the quite ordinary activities placed within an extraordinary setting."
Modern LDS temples are controlled settings wherein the ordinary strains of life can be set aside. Modern ritual, associated with past practices, represent the ideals of heaven, the way things ought to be. The temple setting is indeed extraordinary, even if the humans within it are rather ordinary. Temples through the power of Christ allow the ordinary to be made better.
Is there a place for God in a scientific culture? To me, religion is the foundation. Do both religion and science need to advance? Yes, and I am confident that they will, despite the efforts of some to impede.
Postscript: The comments of ALL are welcome. In my world there is no law against belief (or disbelief).
Copyright 2009 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post and its figures for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire document, 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.
13 comments:
Hi,
We have just added your latest post "Mormon Insights: On the Necessity of Science & Religion” Opens for Business with the Hope of Humanity" to our Directory of Science . You can check the
inclusion of the post here . We are
delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory and get a huge base of visitors to
your website.
Warm Regards
Scienz.info Team
http://www.scienz.info
Liked the post, and am a fan of the blog overall. I also try to crusade for both religion and science. In my eyes, they are complementary, mutually inclusive necessities of a full life.
I'm not sure I completely buy into this 2X2 model, though. Is subjectivity/objectivity continuous or binary? Can no endeavor be both objective/public AND subjective/private?
Also, I wonder if I'm misunderstanding the first portion of your post. Are you equating the distinction between algorithms and heuristics with the distinction between science and religion and with the distinction between reason and emotion??? If so, I think that muddies the water a little.
I guess I'm saying I agree with the overall point you're making, just maybe not with some of the specific arguments you employ. Don't mean to be overly critical, because much of what you said is spot on.
-Brady
Brady (Anonymous):
Thank you for your questions. They are appropriate and of the type I hoped to receive. Further, do not apologize for being critical.
My 2 X 2 model of the religion / science universe is clearly an oversimplification. But, I wanted to create a region of space in which it would be difficult to imagine any removed portions.
Yes, both axes are continuous. Activities can be a mix of the objective and the subjective. Also, they can also be a mix of the theoretical and the applied.
Correct, I am making an analogy (not strict) using heuristics and algorithms. Science tends to be algorithmic (but not strictly, just like Spock), and religion tends to be based upon heuristics (but not strictly, just like Kirk). In any case, I see science and religion operating in different realms of knowledge, even if there is some overlap at times.
In posting this piece, I realized not all readers (whether scientists or religionists) would buy into my model. But, I was trying to create a Gestalt, in which the whole was difficult to reduce.
Thanks for reading, and I loved the questions.
I like your drawing. It reminds me of Ken Wilber's AQAL map of the Kosmos. His integral theory is a philosophical view that shows a practical way to integrate science and religion. He's written many books around the concept, but all I can mention in this short space is that AQAL stands for all quadrants, all levels, and is a way to map everything in the universe. Literally everything.
Mike:
Thanks for reacting. My quadrant map is NOT a map of everything, but it is intended to demonstrate that ways of thinking and reacting are often blends of the objective and subjective or theoretical and applied.
Saying religion should not exist would be like saying there should be no inner mental world. It is easy to castigate the subjective as false, but subjective ideas also can be true or functional.
Besides, Kirk got all the girls. Pure logic loses some of the romance in life.
Hi S Faux. I enjoyed the post, and feel similarly regarding the importance of both science and religion.
This is a thoughtful piece, though it seems like you are making an equivalency between truth and utility - sort of a multi-paragraph expansion of "by their fruits..." The problem that some of us atheists (hi!) have with this reasoning is that we are not driven by merely the ends. The comfort and peace derived from ritual and religious meditation feels hollow when one attempts to assign to it an inscrutable cause.
Show me the tree. Let me feel it's branches and sit in its shade and I'll then be inclined to judge the tree by the goodness of all of it's fruit; not just the sugary treats it produces. But if all that you have to show is a shiny, tasty apple, then I have some equally satisfying fine chocolate which comes from cocoa produced by child slave labor to share with you. Or perhaps some beautiful conflict diamonds? All too often we are unconcerned with the nature of three because we find the fruit so satisfying.
Focusing on the fruit is ultimately an argument to consequences. While that may be a sufficient motivation to investigate the nature of the tree, it is the tree, not the fruit, that ultimately requires scrutiny, don't you think?
If you want to convince atheists that religion is desirable, you need to show that it's true, not just useful. Or, you need to demonstrate that usefulness is a greater good than truth.
P.S. While Spock is a convenient trope, it's a fairly tired atheist stand-in. I certainly don't identify with the character and, while I don't take personal offense, I do worry about the perpetuation of an unfortunate stereotype.
One more comment - this line is very troubling to me:
"...an atheistic world of pure logic without purpose or hope would seem rather stale to me..."
It suggests to me that you don't actually have any atheist acquaintances. I won't even bother responding to the "pure logic" bit, as I've already mentioned the inappropriateness of the Spock metaphor, but lacking a supernatural authority upon which to base one's purpose and to buttress one's hope is NOT the same thing as lacking purpose or hope.
Dear Anonymous atheist:
Your comments and reactions are all excellent. Thank you.
Of course, Spock is NOT a perfect analogy for atheism, but the metaphor helped me to establish some contrasts. Contrasts, even atheism, are necessary to make the world more colorful. The Mormon perspective is that there needs to be opposition in all things. One could make a similar argument that the Humanities are JUST as necessary to supplement the Sciences. Religion and the Humanities are dimensions that enrich life.
My essay was NOT designed to convert atheists. Rather, I wished to draw a picture to help readers understand how science and religion can exist together in the same person.
I am not sure I am making an argument from utility. Some things are "theoretical" (without application) and they need to be that way -- both in science and religion.
You are correct that we must focus on the "tree" not just the "fruit." But, I would argue that religion (enhanced by scholarship) has a richness that goes far beyond the superficial.
I imagine that you and I would agree that religion does little good to the extent it removes individuals from the natural world. To me, evolution is as real as gravity. To me, the universe is ancient. I am not a strict Biblical literalist.
I really do appreciate your careful reasoning. These are my first reactions. Feel free to respond on this blog anytime you like.
I guess I'm still confused about the atheist foil. Atheists have purpose and hope. They have ritual and intuition. They arrive at solutions to problems through heuristic means. The only substantive difference, which you don't really address, is that these things are all experienced by an atheist individually, not according to the doctrine provided by a religious heirarchy, group concensus, or holy text. Additionally there is no inclination to assume supernatural causality for the events the proceed from these experiences.
Anonymous atheist:
Atheism is set up as the foil because of Richard Dawkins, the prime atheist cited in the essay. He argues that religion impedes a productive culture, a productive science, and is harmful to children.
Of course, atheists can have great purpose in life. They do, and I have known many, since I have been in academics all my life. I grew up in colleges and universities.
My argument is mostly directed to Dawkins, in that religion (even religious diversity) need not be counter to scientific enlightenment. It is certainly NOT harmful to children (when given in proper dosages by wise parents).
I am NOT arguing that atheism is amoral or without purpose. Contrary to Dawkins, however, I feel religion enriches life more than it subtracts from it. Without religion, life would be more stale. That is my perspective, obviously not yours.
Again, I appreciate your comments. There is too much agreeing and group hugs around here.
Goodness, I hope I'm not coming across as an anti hugger here. I'm perfectly capable of hugging someone while disagreeing with them. I might even throw in a free back pat. :)
Yes, I like the way you put it; "Kirk got all the girls." Indeed there is more to life than logic. It seems to me that to focus simply upon the scientific materialist viewpoint is to ignore the entire dimension of consciousness. How did consciousness evolve? Science has barely begun to address this.
Post a Comment