Who gets to be “on top”? Science versus Religion
For centuries, established religions have asserted that science should be viewed through the lens of religion. Over the past few years, scientifically-oriented writers have turned that view on its head. They have asserted that it is more appropriate to view religious practices through the lens of science.
The recent flurry of books includes the following:
- Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, by Pascal Boyer (2002)
- The Human Story, by Robin Dunbar (2004)
- Breaking the Spell, by Daniel Dennett (2006)
- Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, By David Sloan Wilson (2003)
- How We Believe, by Michael Shermer (1999)
- Why God’s Persist, by Robert Hinde (1999)
- The End of Faith, by Sam Harris (2004)
- Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion, by Lee Kirkpatrick (2005)
- In Gods We Trust, by Scott Atran (2002)
Though I own each of these books, I have completely read only half of them; I’m partly through the others. They are a priority on my reading list given the high stakes of failing to understand religious practices (religious tensions and wars everywhere one cares to look).
For anyone just getting started in this area, I recommend Dennett’s 2006 work, Breaking the Spell. This book is classic Dennett: eloquent, heartfelt and clear. He works extra hard so that he is not only preaching to the choir. He spends the first one-hundred pages working to convince Believers to give him a chance. It’s quite an extraordinary opening gambit.
Most of the above books concern similar questions regarding religion, though they approach these issues in a variety of ways. Those questions include the following:
1. Why do religious people say the puzzling things they say?
For instance, some Believers say that a virgin gave birth. Others insist that the Bible is absolutely consistent even though the Bible identifies two separate men as the father of Joseph (in an ethereal-sperm sort of way, I’m referring to the “biological” grandfather of Jesus); one Gospel insists that his name is “Jacob” (Matthew 1:16) while another gospel insists it is “Heli” (Luke 3:23). There are many many more contradictions where this came from. See the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible.
2. Do believers really believe the alleged truths of their religions? Literalist believers claim that they truly believe Bible truths, but this is difficult to grasp for outsiders like me. For instance Deuteronomy 5:14 couldn’t be any clearer that God’s people shouldn’t work at all one day out of seven. Yet there they are working those Wal-Mart stores seven days out of seven.
3. Why do believers engage in rituals? You know . . . I’m referring to those things that many non-believers see to be pointless and time-wasting. Interestingly, Believers often disparage the rituals of every one else’s religion.
Each of these questions is actually four separate “why” questions, as established by the Nobel Prize winning ethologist Niko Tinbergen. These four “why” questions concern the behavior’s:
- Phylogeny or history (when did the behavior developed over geological time as part of the evolution of the species?).
- Ontogeny (the behavior’s development over the life of the individual animal),
- Function (how the behaviour impacts the animal’s chances of survival and reproduction; the purpose the behavior serves in the animal’s life) and
- Proximate cause or mechanisms (what bodily machinery, including motivational systems, produces that behavior).
A full explanation of religious practice must carefully deal with each of these levels of explanation. In The Human Story, Robin Dunbar points out that when analyzing any trait or behavior, it is important that we not confuse these levels of analysis, the most common confusion being between function and ontogeny. As Daniel Dennett writes in Breaking the Spell, science is just getting started analyzing religion with vigor (hence the title to his book).
Based on these recent books, science is finally gearing up to vigorously put religion under the microscope of science. Religion is not going to comply willingly, however. If (long) history is any indication, religions (especially literalist traditions) will continue to insist that religion is primary and that any scientific finding threatening religious authority will be prima facie overruled.
Ironically, the science needed for a fruitful analysis of religion is rich in vitamin “D” (Darwin). Thus, the struggle once again comes down to believers versus Darwin. This will be interesting struggle to watch. I find it equally fascinating and frustrating to watch fundamentalist apologists deal with inconvenient facts.
Even “science-friendly” religions such as the Roman Catholic Church aren’t about to hand science a blank check to figure things out. The Catholic hierarchy will likely invoke its suspect intellectual and moral authority to veto the entire project if-ever and when-ever the enterprise becomes too embarrassing or inconvenient. It will do this despite the many ghosts from its past: To the Galileo problem, the massive pedophilia cover-up and the Church’s silence during the Nazi Holocaust, I would add the Church’s reprehensible treatment of gays and the Church’s condemnation of effective birth control, a position responsible massive starvation and suffering.
I’m not trying to pick on the Catholic Church. I believe the Catholic Church will be more open to a scientific analysis of religion than the many religions that are more literalist/conservative. When the termites of science start munching at theological foundations, however, you can expect the Catholic Church to generate tons of abstruse proclamations.
The more literalist/fundamentalist religions will fight a different type of fight. They will throw off their gloves at the earliest moment to grab further hold of the political process in order to shut down funding for all universities and institutions daring to follow where the evidence leads.
Liberal religions (e.g., Unitarian Churches) might well watch the work of science with some interest and, indeed, even some enthusiasm. After all, many followers of liberal religions manage to find plenty of room for their poetic and inspirational versions of God no matter what science digs up.
The question, again: Should we look at science through the lens of religion or should we examine religion through the lens of science? I would choose to latter and here’s why. As Sam Harris wrote in The End of Faith, “religious faith is the one species of human ignorance that will not admit of even the possibility of correction” (p. 223). In short, many religions (especially literalist sects) have already set their positions. They will be there to fight science no matter what science finds. They’ve already drawn their curves. All that remains is to plot their biased data in accordance with their belief frames, guided by the all-powerful confirmation bias.
Science, on the other hand, is self correcting, isn’t it? Or is science often wrong and aren’t scientists often pig-headed? Yes to both of these questions! Despite overwhelming supporting evidence, elegant new scientific explanations are regularly rejected by people (including experts in the same field) who refuse to look at new evidence with open minds. Galileo and Darwin are only the most recognizable examples. Here are three equally disturbing examples:
- Alfred Wegener, the scientist who developed tectonic plate theory in 1915. Despite the existence of evidence supporting his theory, it was rejected by most of his contemporaries.
- The same thing happened in 1984 to Australian Doctor Barry Marshall, who argued (to a chorus of ridicule) that many ulcers are caused by bacteria called helicobacter pylori, not stress. It opponents claimed that it was medical fact that stress caused ulcers. Desperate to prove his theory. Marshall drank a beaker of the bacteria to cause an ulcer in his own liver. This began a revolution in our understanding and treatment of peptic ulcer disease).
- Kilmer McCully, M.D. paid dearly for disparaging the reigning theory of his day, that heart attacks were caused by excessive cholesterol. McCully published papers contending that high cholesterol was not the main cause of heart disease. His 1969 theory linked homocysteine—an amino acid that accumulates in the blood—and heart disease. For this work he was banished from Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital. For the next 27 months he was unable to find a position in North America that would allow him to continue this work.
Yes, science makes big mistakes. The most important question to ask, however, is whether it is religion or science that has better tools for making self-corrections. The clear winner is science. Each of the above-described scientific blunders was corrected. Science is currently off and running in the right direction in each of these cases. As Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his classic 1962 work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, inertial and institutional forces sometimes delay the implementation of major steering corrections in scientific research. In the end, though, science gets it right.
Therefore, full speed ahead with the scientific analysis of religion! Given the spate of unceasing religious wars everywhere we look, the stakes are too high to fail in this endeavor.
Erich
[Clarification: Do I need to insert again, just to be clear, that I have the highest admiration for many devout believers? That I find fault with the official doctrines and the organizational structures of many religions in no way disparages the heroic efforts of many members of these organizations to relieve human suffering, to achieve social justice and to encourage vigorous and free-thinking human exploration of the world. If such a clarification is needed, here it is: A toast to good-hearted open-minded believers everywhere!]
