Derek, I think you're right that scientists are apprehensive about religion and spirituality because they deal with concepts that are outside the bounds of science. Any idea about anything supernatural is completely untestable. If you try to apply the scientific approach to such topics, you are stuck with either agnosticism (because questions about the supernatural are scientifically untestable, so we should no pretend we have scientific answers to such questions) or atheism (because assuming the presence of supernatural things on top of all we can demonstrate to be true is less parsimonious than assuming their absence).
On the flip side, though, I think the attempts by many religious people to apply religious belief to things that are well within the bounds of science cause even more apprehension for scientists. I think we see that in some of the characterizations of religion we've seen on this forum (ie, religion is about blindly believing things taught to you by religious authorities, regardless of or even in spite of concrete, compelling evidence to the contrary). Believing things about the natural world without or in spite of evidence and logic isn't compatible with the philosophy of science, so if one equates all religion with that kind of belief, science and religion must be considered mutually exclusive, and religious people must avoid topics where the evidence contradicts their beliefs, or stay out of science altogether. And is it any wonder that we don't like religion invading our turf? We get religious opposition on the age of the universe, the existence of dinosaurs (non-contemporaneously with humans), the occurrence of biological evolution, and even global warming. Add to that all the times our findings are overridden by plain old politics and the refusal to believe whatever is inconsistent with one's worldview, and it's no wonder we get cranky at anything (like religion) that lies behind a wide array of irrational beliefs. Still, it's not accurate to say that all religion involves believing things in the absence of evidence. I strongly recommend books by Karen Armstrong for anyone who wants to understand how this can be. "A History of God" is pretty dense, but it really puts our modern Christian literalism in perspective, relative to the history and breadth of the Abrahamic religions. "The Spiral Staircase" is an autobiography, but since most of her life story revolves around theology and religion, is still provides some insight into a wide array of religious subjects. I'm reading "The Case for God" now, and it mostly seems to reiterate points from her other books, but it's more accessible than "A History of God." Jim Crants (P.S. David McNeely said all I would have to say about the selfish gene model, but if you really want to know what people here think about it, I would recommend starting a new discussion.) On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Derek Pursell <[email protected]> wrote: > That's fine Mr. Roper, it is nothing, haha! To continue with the topic at > hand though, the principles of the person being their own judge on the > matter and being able to explain to someone's self-satisfaction seem sound > standards. Granted, some people will inevitably be more difficult to satisfy > than others, but that can be readily assessed by noting the extent of one's > knowledge on a subject. > To quote from earlier: "So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about > a subject, we should suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more. But, > we should definitely > NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing. > Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one > knows little or nothing." > While I would generally agree that this is true, there are issues presented > in this statement. Since science is based off the notions of rationalism, > empiricism, the sensory and the provable, it is a 'relatively' simple and > straightforward process to acquire and learn new knowledge on the subject in > question. Religion, and its precepts of faith, relying upon intuition before > logic, on the idea of "the unknowable" or "unprovable" prohibit the > application of scientific principles to understand religious questions. I > think this is where many scientists acquire their apprehension of > spirituality and religiosity in general: they try to apply the scientific > principles and methodologies (how they've been taught to think, act, speak, > live) to something where such ideas do not work and do not apply. It is > trying to understand something unreasonable with reason, and that itself > seems absurd. It isn't as if there is anything wrong with trying to > understand "old" > human knowledge with "new" human knowledge, but there are many cerebral > pitfalls to be avoided in my opinion. I've been reading "Why we do it: > rethinking the selfish gene" by Niles Eldredge (a book I'd highly recommend > if one is interested in evolutionary biology, and it is written with > sufficient clarity that non-scientists can understand it). His central point > I find striking, in that the modern interpretations of some evolutionary > biologists that propagate Dawkins' "selfish gene" idea are assigning traits > we'd typically assign to specimens of a species (sexual selection, the > general struggle for continued existence), to genes, the mechanics of > organisms and species. I'm very curious as to what people think about the > selfish gene idea here, considering the pool of intellectual heft here to > weigh upon it. > - Derek E. Pursell > > --- On Sun, 5/16/10, James J. Roper <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: James J. Roper <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > To: "Derek Pursell" <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 1:45 PM > > Sorry Derek, > I realized I called you Dave just AFTER I clicked the send button. I > indeed did mean you, and not Dave, whoever he may be. > Cheers, > Jim > > > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 18:55, Derek Pursell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mr. Roper makes an excellent point here; the value of establishing that one > should not have an opinion (interpretation: bias?) before studying or > gaining further knowledge of a subject is invaluable to the pursuit of > knowledge. This principle applies for scientific and non-scientific > purposes. This idea, so presented, does bring up another question: what > would we like to define as "sufficient knowledge" in order to justify having > an opinion on a subject? From my personal experience, people tend to form > opinions on subjects relatively early in the process of learning about them > (if indeed, any meaningful degree of learning takes place), so the perils > are obvious. Granted, the definition of "sufficient knowledge" is broadly > interpretative and would vary from subject to subject, but it can be > troublesome because of the age-old issue of how people define and use the > same word to mean many different things. > > > The problems surrounding definition and how words are understood and used > is something that is best solved by the evolving pursuit of greater > education, for all people. Not to send the topic too far askew, but if we'd > like to make the normative suggestion that people -should- learn more about > a topic before forming an opinion on it, how do we go about creating that > education and awareness, especially considering that the traditional > academic structure of learning is not something that all people have access > to? The internet has done wonders to help people to this effect, but the > pursuit of knowledge remains implicitly voluntary. Granted, it almost always > has, but it seems to suggest that to better educate the public at large with > the necessary (Interpretations: knowledge of what, and to what degree?) > education that is required, that the traditional K-12 + College/University > structure needs to evolve to suit the needs of the people. How to go about > doing > > > that, oy, that is a topic in and of itself. > > -Derek E. Pursell > > > > --- On Sat, 5/15/10, James J. Roper <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From: James J. Roper <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 1:38 PM > > > > I think that some of us may forget about the possibility of NOT forming > > opinions. > > > > On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:50, Frank Marenghi <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh > all > > > of the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own > rational > > > conclusions > > > > > > On those things we know little or nothing, we do NOT really have to have an > > opinion. I am reminded of a lay friend who told me outright that global > > warming was not happening (I think she thinks it is a communist plot). I > > asked her, why do you even HAVE an opinion on this matter, when you know > > nothing of the subject? > > > > After all, if it is, or is not, occurring, it is not a matter of opinion. > > Just like evolution - not a matter of opinion. So, if the situation is > > such that I cannot weigh ENOUGH evidence, I don't come to conclusions > > either. So, if someone asks me what I think of the grand unified theory of > > physics, I will say, I don't know enough to form a good viewpoint. That is > > a much freer position, and more logical for a scientist. Read Futuyma's > > review of the book "What Darwing got wrong" (the review is titled "Two > > Critics Without a Clue") and you will see what happens when ill-informed > > people try to make an argument based on insufficient knowledge of a > subject. > > > > So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about a subject, we should > > suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more. But, we should > definitely > > NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing. > > Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one > > knows little or nothing. > > > > Cheers, > > > > JIm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > James J. Roper, Ph.D. > > > > > > > Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics > > > of Terrestrial Vertebrates > > > > > Caixa Postal 19034 > > > 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil > > > > > E-mail: > > [email protected] > > > Telefone: 55 41 36730409 > > > Celular: 55 41 98182559 > > > Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064 > > > Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715 > > > > > Ecology and > > Conservation at the UFPR > > > Home Page > > > Ars Artium Consulting > > > In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
