Celebrating Darwin: Religion And Science Are Closer Than You Think

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/religion-and-science-distance-between-not-as-far-as-you-think_b_2664657.html

Max Tegmark
Physicist, MIT

Posted: 02/12/2013 6:41 am

He looked really uneasy. I'd just finished giving my first lecture of 8.282, MIT's freshman astronomy course, but this one student stayed behind in my classroom. He nervously explained that although he liked the subject, he worried that my teaching conflicted with his religion. I asked him what his religion was, and when I told him that it had officially declared there to be no conflict with Big Bang cosmology, something amazing happened: his anxiety just melted away right in front of my eyes! Poof!

This gave me the idea to start the MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins, which we're officially publishing today in honor of Charles Darwin's 204th birthday. We found that only 11 percent of Americans belong to religions openly rejecting evolution or our Big Bang. So if someone you know has the same stressful predicament as my student, chances are that they can relax as well. To find out for sure, check out this infographic.

So is there a conflict between science and religion? The religious organizations representing most Americans clearly don't think so. Interestingly, the science organizations representing most American scientists don't think so either: For example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science states that science and religion "live together quite comfortably, including in the minds of many scientists." This shows that the main divide in the U.S. origins debate isn't between science and religion, but between a small fundamentalist minority and mainstream religious communities who embrace science.

So why is this small fundamentalist minority so influential? How can some politicians and school-board members get reelected even after claiming that our 14 billion-year-old universe might be only about 6,000 years old? That's like claiming that 90-year-old aunt is only 20 minutes old. It's tantamount to claiming that if you watch this video of a supernova explosion in the Centaurus A Galaxy about 10 million light-years away, you're seeing something that never happened, because light from the explosion needs 10 million years to reach Earth. Why isn't making such claims political suicide?

more at link

[longship]

1. There's a short online survey on the page as well.

R&K

[cbayer]

2. Thanks for pointing that out. I took it and hope others will as well,

though on-line surveys are not really reliable, the results are interesting.

[Ron Obvious]

3. Religion and Science ARE fundamentally opposed to one another...

Science observes the world as it is, and then tries to formulate a model and rules to describe it. Should the model not fit the data, the model is changed. Formulating a revolutionary new model that fits the real world data better and destroys the existing model gets you a Nobel price and the admiration of your colleagues.

Religion and religious thinking imposes a model on the real world and twists facts to fit the pre-existing model rather than the other way around. Formulating a revolutionary new model gets you branded a heretic, causes yet another schism that divides the flock and may even cost you your life in certain times and places. Bloody wars have often been the result.

When Einstein proposed a radical new model of gravity, scientists didn't split into Newtonians and Einsteinians. Conversely, How many thousands of sects of Christianity alone do we have in this country? I'd say that's an indication of the fundamental difference between the two different ways of looking at the world.

If a student isn't willing to 100% abandon EVERYTHING he/she knows about the world they live in, they're probably not good material for a scientific career. Rather than being anxious of having their beliefs challenged, a good scientist welcomes it and is eager. to test their understanding at all times.

Personally I couldn't think of anything more exciting than finding out I was completely wrong about some fundamental understanding I had of the universe or history. But the evidence better be damn convincing.

[cbayer]

4. They are fundamentally opposed in the same way meat and vegetables are.

They are totally different entities and speak to totally different issues, but both may provide nutrition. Some people like both. Some like only one.

No scientist, indeed no person, can abandon everything they know or believe, that is why the best research uses rigidly applied scientific method. What they do need to be able to do is abandon their hypothesis when the evidence against it is irrefutable.

Sounds like you are (or could be) a very good scientist.

[cleanhippie]

5. The only issue that Religion speaks to is the issue it created so it could speak to it.

[Ron Obvious]

6. That sounds like NOMA

It sounds like you;d agree with Stephen Jay Gould's Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) where Religion and Science don't overlap their spheres of interest, and there would be many people who would agree with him (and you).

I'm not one of them, though. For one thing, Religion makes claims about the real world all the time, and indeed has to if it is not to abstract itself to complete pointlessness. While most mainstream religious people no longer believe many of the supernatural claims of old, that is because science has shown those beliefs to be false.

Conversely, I'm not entirely clear what nutrition is provided by the religious half of this equation. Morality, comfort?

I prefer my morality to be informed by the facts. A good example is the abortion and stem cell debate. I think it's vital to know that a foetus doesn't develop a nervous system or brain wiring to be able to sense anything whatsoever until around the 6th month, and that a 5 day blastocyst has about 100 cells or about 1% the number of cells of the brains of a fruitfly. Informed by these facts, and aware of the societal and personal harm caused by unwanted pregnancies we can pragmatically formulate 1st, 2d and 3d trimester abortion laws, and support stem cell research. Religiously-motivated abortion laws on the other hand have caused untold suffering and death and would prevent stem cell treatments that could immeasurably improve the lives of suffering people.

Where does religion come into it, and what does it add exactly? I believe myself to be a good and empathetic person (a mere software engineer, btw) because evolution tends to weed out those individuals and societies that can't cooperate, not because of anything spiritual inside me. Naturally scientists are human and don't always live up their ideals either, but I think we've progressed tremendously as human societies when it comes to to the rights of individuals and their suffering. Science has doubled the life expectancy of the average person in about a century by being willing to reject established ideas and religious thinking (e.g disease as God's judgement).

It's no surprise to me that the most religious societies on earth have the poorest human rights record and the most social problems. We even see that here in the US.

[cbayer]

7. I'm not familiar with NOMA, but would say I mostly agree in principle.

However, I do think there are places where there is overlap and that overlap can be both good and bad.

As an example of a good overlap, I think the growing movement among evangelicals to address climate change is a very good thing. Essentially some have taken the position that they are charged with the responsibility of being custodians of the planet. They believe the science and believe in the solutions backed by science.

You don't understand why religion nourishes some because it does not nourish you. It is no accident that the most marginalized and abused people in this world have higher rates of religious beliefs. American slaves turned to religion for many reasons, not least among them was the belief that there was a better life for them to come.

While you say that the most religious societies have the worst human rights records, I think you would have trouble backing that up with the thing you most ardently defend - data. Start with China as having one of the worst and the US as one of the best.

A good ethic is a good ethic. It matters not a bit where it comes from, imo. You want to inform yours with science, that's fine. Science also informed the developers of atomic weapons and those that chose to use them. Religion and religious groups provide some of the most needed services to those with the most needs in this world. Neither are perfect - both can be used for good and bad.

[Ron Obvious]

8. Religion

You're right to call me on overstating my case about religious societies having the worst human rights records, although I think you could find lots of people who would argue that the US has a good record in this area (viz.healthcare, record imprisonment, condoning torture and assassination and static social mobility among others). I believe the relationship does generally tend to reflect my point, though.

To me it's one of the great ironic aspects of human psychology that those most enslaved and ill-treated by religion (women, the poor, minorities) tend to be the biggest adherents of it. Volumes have been written on this already though.

To boil everything down to its essentials: Does it matter to you that what you believe is also true? I've met too many believers for whom that doesn't appear to be a consideration at all, as long as their beliefs felt good and right. To me it does matter, and that's why religious comfort provides me no nourishment. It does matter to me where my ethics come from, although I'm willing to applaud Christian leaders who take the idea of stewardship seriously, but I'd claim that Christians doing good would be good even if they were not Christians and it's not their religion that makes them do good.

I'm also not afraid to say "I don't know" where it's appropriate. I don't know what caused the Big Bang or if anything preceded it or if that question even makes sense. I don't know if we live in a universe, an infinite multiverse or a computer simulation. Nobody does. Not even the religious authorities who claim to have the answers -- assertions are not answers, and their track record in this area is poor in any case.

[cbayer]

9. This I believe - there are some things that I can not *prove* or *disprove*.

I believe that I love my husband (despite what he might point out is evidence to the contrary at times, lol). I have faith in his love for me.

I'm not a religionist, by the way. Whether there is a god or not makes no difference to me. As it can't be proven or disproven, I have no interest in arguing for or against either position.

I am, however, an advocate for religionists if their beliefs do not impinge on the rights of others. I object to those that are anti-theists or anti-atheists.

There is no excusing those that have used religion, religious institutions or the veils of religion to harm others or restrict human rights, and I would never try to defend them. But I reject those who think that all religion is bad because there has been some bad.

Honestly, I don't think we are that different in terms of our personal perspectives, only in the way we think or feel about those whose perspectives are different. I welcome the diversity and see no reason to challenge it, particularly when I see how much good they can (and do) do.

[Ron Obvious]

10. Ultimately, this is where we differ

Ultimately, this is where we differ:

"Whether there is a god or not makes no difference to me."

It matters very much to me indeed. I'm a big believer in freedom of religion and freedom of conscience so the label of anti-theist only applies to me in so far as I'm anti-astrology and anti-homeopathy. I believe irrational philosophies to be waste of brainpower at best and actively harmful as tools of oppression, manipulation and repression and a retardant of social progress.

Seneca (The ancients pinched all my best lines) summed it up for me: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful"

[cbayer]

11. I like that quote but would disagree substantially with most of it.

Non-believers are not wiser than believers nor are believers more *common* than non-believers.

That's where the "brights" stand. It is offensive and arrogant, if not outright bigoted, imo.

OTOH, I do think it is seen by rulers as useful.

[trotsky]

13. What?

"As an example of a good overlap, I think the growing movement among evangelicals to address climate change is a very good thing."

That's not overlap. That's religion accepting the results of science.

[cleanhippie]

12. The author makes some interesting points.

I take exception to this

The real battle is against the daunting challenges facing the future of humanity, and regardless of our religious views, we're all better off fighting this battle united.

While I understand the sentiment, it doesn't mesh with reality. His view of the battle requires getting both sides to cease hostilities, simultaneously. And that is not realistic. It also discounts the fact that there is even a battle to begin with because religion refuses to accept science as the best way to deal with "asteroid collisions, on-board explosions, overheating, ultraviolet shield destruction and premature depletion of supplies" and insists on inserting it's own solutions based on something that is well, NOT science.

[dimbear]

14. "So why is this fundamentalist minority so powerful?"

That's the key question. Two points come to mind. Firstly, they enjoy the benefit that their belief system is lazy. For them the universe is simple and doesn't take years of study and lots of math to understand. (Or larger brains.)

Secondly, they are protected in their cocoon by insistent believers of other faiths who assert that every religion's views should enjoy protected status.