NOVEMBER 2002
Science and religion need not engage
in open warfare; but lowering the high standard of evidence that
is the hallmark of the scientific method, in order to accommodate
religion, is too high a price to pay for peace.
There is a reason they are called "spirituals."
It is because they are songs about Jesus, heaven and other things
"spiritual." The recent trend to redefine that word,
spiritual, is unsettling because there are a great number of supposedly
skeptical, rational scientists who have joined the movement to
make the word mean something it does not mean. I maintain that
we skeptics may not lay claim to the title if we are going to
play fast and loose with such words. We seem to be searching,
desperately, for some wiggle room in the face of the aggressive
full court press recently initiated by the Religious Right. We
are flinching.
I recently came across the July/August 1999 issue of Skeptical
Inquirer magazine. I was riveted. (Other than those by Carl Sagan, all quotes and references are from that issue.)
It was devoted to the controversy, and controversy it is, about
science and religion, asking whether or not the two can coexist
peacefully, side by side. They cannot. If we are to allow words
to mean what they mean, the two may not hope for anything better
than an armed truce.
THE DEFINING PROBLEM
The word "spiritual" is a prominent example of the
definition quagmire we seem to be mired in. There are many other
words that are beginning to be redefined into meaninglessness—religious,
faith and belief among them. Even my hero, the late Carl Sagan
(1995), discussed the word spirituality by saying, "'Spirit'
comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air,
which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the
contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual'
that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the
matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm
of science." I know of not one person who thinks spirituality
means breathing air or associates it with anything other
than religion.
Disingenuous may be too strong a word to use, but such baffling
interpretations are at the least misleading. Likewise, in listing
different models of understanding how science and religion interact,
Eugenie Scott mentioned "nonmaterial realms" as if
they existed. But what is a nonmaterial realm? Has
anyone ever seen one? Even the supposed vacuum of intergalactic
space contains molecules, which are certainly material.
In our efforts to be conciliatory, we refuse to apply words
like paranormal and mystical to organized religions—voodoo yes,
organized religions, no. But why? Calling upon unknowable, invisible
spirits to give us mortals a helping hand belongs in the realm
of the supernatural, meaning something existing outside the natural
world, meaning something that to a skeptic does not exist. The
invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike.
Barry Palevitz offered an insightful, rational description
of how he deals with some of his science students' insistence
on compromising by allowing a little bit of God to be incorporated
into scientific theories. But at the end he makes the unqualified
statement that spirituality is "not only possible [in science]
but even advantageous."
We obviously need to define spiritual and spirituality.
One successful strategy is to look in a dictionary. If you look
up spirituality you will find all manner of definitions
such as religious, holy, supernatural and transcendental; of,
or pertaining to, things immaterial, the soul, God; ghostly; ethereal;
sacred and so on. Nowhere will you find "Of, or pertaining
to, the wondrous awe in contemplating the universe." Sagan
again (1995): "Despite usage to the contrary….Science
is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source
of spirituality." [Emphasis mine.]
But our usage defines our words, and determines how
they end up in our dictionaries. For example, "forsooth"
used to mean indeed or in truth; but our lack of usage
has relegated it to Shakespearean plays and limericks. We cannot
simply dismiss usage with a flick of the wrist just because
it may help us avoid an unpleasant philosophical confrontation.
If words are to have any meaning, we must view them as they
are commonly used and understood today. If someone says,
"She's a deeply religious woman," there is no confusion
about meaning.
English is a rich language, filled with
nuance—ever so subtle
shades of meaning. We have words like wonderment, awe, love,
compassion, ardor, reverence, respect, astonishment, cherish and
on and on almost indefinitely. There is no need to co-opt words
like "spiritual" to do convoluted, oblique double-duty
in the attempt to foster the illusion that religionists and nonbelievers
have similar worldviews. The gulf dividing those two worldviews,
depending on the strength of the religious beliefs involved, can
be measured in light-years. I used to be a fundamentalist Christian,
and I can assure you that from a fundamentalist viewpoint, this
earthly life, along with the pretty little lights in the night
sky, are utterly unimportant. Life is just a place to wait to
die, after which real life begins.
So then, taken in the correct context—the honest, unvarnished,
guileless, unembroidered context—there is nothing scientific about
spirituality and nothing spiritual about science.
BREACHING BOUNDARIES
Stephen Jay Gould referred to science and religion as "non-overlapping
magisteria." Non-overlapping? Hardly! The Judeo-Christian
tradition embraces, as truths, such things as talking animals,
a talking burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, the sun "standing
still" for Joshua, food falling out of the sky, a human walking
on water, people rising from their graves, and several individuals
"ascending" bodily into heaven. Such "truths"
require the suspension of the laws of nature; if that is
not overlapping the field of science I cannot imagine what would.
Defining skepticism is another arduous task, though it should
not be. The classical definition of skepticism is that no absolute
knowledge is possible, either because of our own limitations or
the inaccessibility of the object we are seeking knowledge about.
Entire articles, book chapters and treatises have been written
about this bit of sophistry, which is absurd. The definition
itself is an obvious contradiction. If there is no way to know
anything for certain, then there is no way to know that
there is no way to know anything for certain. Nothing more needs
to be said on that subject. I'd like to see this definition trot
off into the sunset, forever. I know, for a certainty,
that that definition gives me a headache.
The more generally accepted definition of skepticism, that
all assumptions must be questioned and tested for reliability,
should apply to all scientists. And usually it does. But when
it comes to testing religious claims for reliability, many scientists,
like the rest of us, run away from the whole subject like scalded
cats. We criticize séances, but not prayer. Why? What's
the difference? We scoff at leprechauns and fairies in the garden,
but not at guardian angels. Why? We challenge the idea of someone
being whisked off to Jupiter by aliens, but not the idea of invisible
souls being whisked off to an equally invisible heaven after death.
Why?
In order to be consistent, and maintain credibility, skeptics
must deal with all claims of supernatural phenomena. Religion
should not be vouchsafed a privileged position just because so
many people are religious. At one time most humans believed the
sun orbited the Earth. Should Copernicus therefore have abandoned
his pursuits in deference to that majority? Scientific knowledge
cannot be acquired by a show of hands, and skeptical inquiry should
not brake to a screeching halt for fear of offending True Believers.
I am also always frustrated when I hear
people say "God" as if there were a universal understanding
of that word. Nothing could be further from the truth. The God
of the Jews did not send Jesus as Savior of the
world, but the Christian God did. The Mormon God inspired Joseph
Smith, but the Moslem God inspired Mohammed. Then there are Brahma,
Vishnu and Shiva—the world is filled with mutually exclusive
Gods. This fact alone would seem to render all religions
moot. And when Einstein made his statement about God being subtle,
though not malicious, do you suppose he was talking about Brahma?
PAPAL POWER
Both Richard Dawkins and Gould expressed appreciation for the
Pope's 1996 acknowledgement of evolution—Dawkins briefly and
grudgingly, Gould lengthily and enthusiastically. I'm with Dawkins
on this, though I wouldn't even go as far as he did. Why does
any scientist care what the Pope says? I thought science
and religion were supposed to be "non-overlapping magisteria."
Would there have been worldwide acclaim if the Pope had announced
that the periodic table of elements can now be said to exist?
Finally crawling out of the 15th century does not
merit exuberant applause. And saying that John Paul's position
on evolution is a great improvement over that of Pius XII is like
saying that having three flat tires all at the same time is a
great improvement over having four. Not to me.
Nor can I agree with Gould's statement that "neither religion
[Catholicism and Judaism] maintains any extensive tradition for
reading the Bible as literal truth…" This should come
as a surprise to all strictly observant Catholics who are told
they are committing a sin if they practice birth control. And
whence the authority for this doctrine? A literal interpretation
of the words in Genesis: "be fruitful and multiply."
Hasn't the Pope noticed that not only have we multiplied, but
that overpopulation is one of the world's most serious problems?
The human suffering caused by the ban on birth control is incalculable.
And quite recently John Paul II enshrined the birth control ban
into Canon Law, guaranteeing more human misery. On a planet that
has long been groaning under the weight of its human cargo, such
an edict is a harsh cruelty.
I am an atheist, obviously. Having said that, I do respect
the rights of others to worship as they please—as long as they
do not try to force their beliefs on me or into our tax-supported
courtrooms or public schoolrooms. And this is where the science
vs. religion battle rages. So-called "scientific creationism"
is inching its way into our classrooms, in part because of the
lack of vociferous opposition from credentialed scientists.
That wiggle room I mentioned earlier is still being sought by
far too many whose voices would command respect if only they were
loud enough for us to hear.
The stories of the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark are outlandish,
childish and positively unbelievable. The thought of their being
presented to our school children, side by side with evolution,
as an alternative but equally valid explanation for the
diversity and location of all animal life on Earth, is almost
inconceivable. It is also not a little frightening. But unless
we all fight back, now, it will undoubtedly come to pass.
Unconstitutional school vouchers are already in place in many
states, the House of Representatives voted in favor of displaying
the so-called Ten Commandments on public property, everyone in
Congress is singing "God Bless America" and so on.
I'll say it again, all it takes for America to become a theocracy
is for nonbelievers, and scientists and skeptics, to do
nothing.
Turning a blind eye to the mystical, magical claims of most
religions does not change the nature of those mystical, magical
claims. Scientists are trained in the art of critical thinking,
scrupulously demanding convincing evidence before adopting any
hypothesis as a theory. While I have trouble understanding how
some otherwise skeptical thinkers can compartmentalize their thoughts
to accommodate belief in an unknowable, invisible God, whose existence
cannot be proven or falsified, I fully acknowledge their right
to do so. We are fortunate to be living in a society that allows
complete freedom of religion. Giordano Bruno, Galileo and hundreds
of thousands of others were not so lucky. However, the freedom
to believe something does not validate that belief. There is
no escaping the fact that science and religion do clash
if the scientific method is applied to religious beliefs.
© 2002 Judith Hayes
References
Sagan, Carl. 1995. The Demon-Haunted World. New York: Random House, 29.
~~~~~~~~~
Dawkins, Richard. 1999. You can't have it both ways: irreconcilable differences? SKEPTICAL INQUIRER 23 (4): July/August, 64.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1999. Non-overlapping magisteria. Ibid., 55-61.
Palevitz, Barry A. 1999. Science and the versus of religion. Ibid., 32-35.
Scott, Eugenie C. 1999. The science and religion movement.
Ibid., 30.
Back to Main Page Back to Previous Columns