What kind of interface?
Michael Ruse says why the Templeton Foundation is a good thing.
More recently, the award has been given to academics working on the science-religion interface. It was therefore appropriate that this year the Prize went to Francisco Ayala, a Spanish-born population geneticist at the University of California at Irvine. Ayala (a former Catholic priest) has long been interested in the science-religion relationship…
The science-religion interface? What’s that? That’s the kind of thing that Templeton always talks about, but what exactly is it? And what does Michael Ruse think it is?
It could just mean, or be intended to mean, scientists and religious believers talking. That would certainly be unexceptionable. The trouble is, that doesn’t really seem like a very plausible understanding of what it means. One doesn’t hear about a history-mathematics interface as a way of referring to historians and mathematicians talking, nor does such an activity seem worth millions of dollars of foundation money. As far as I know, Templeton’s idea of the science-religion interface or relationship or whatever is that they are supposed to contribute to or enrich each other. But that’s just what’s contested. Critics think the two don’t have anything to contribute to each other, especially in the direction religion—>science. Ruse seems to be endorsing or at least taking for granted Templeton’s project, without spelling out exactly what he’s saying.
The Templeton Foundation…is essentially devoted to the promotion of the interaction and harmony between science and religion.
But interaction in what sense? Just chatting in the halls? Or substantive, disciplinary interaction? It does make a difference, to put it mildly.
But it’s useless to repine. Ruse goes on to say a lot of wholly irrelevant things, so it turns out that actually this jumble of a piece was just an excuse to tell the world yet again about his expert witness gig in Arkansas and, more amusingly for him, to say rude things about Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne and especially (wait for it) PZ Myers. The closest he gets to explaining why Templeton is all right is to say ‘I don’t see anything morally wrong with someone trying to reconcile science and religion. Clarifying that a little, I don’t see anything morally wrong with religion as such.’ Morally wrong isn’t the issue! The point is that it’s epistemically wrong.
But all of a sudden at the very end he simply agrees to that, or at least seems to.
I don’t want to reconcile science and religion if this implies that religion must be true. At most, I want to show that science does not preclude being religious.
Well – quite. So what did – oh never mind. Ruse just likes to mouth off. It’s pointless to expect him to make sense.
How can science and religion have an “interface” if they are non-overlapping magisteria? Me is so confused . . .
I was, originaly, going to say what Blake did, but then I remembered that the NOMA model is broken.
IIRC Dawkins and Dennett broke it fairly comprehensively.
The trouble is, that, so far, every time that science and religion come into conflict over a matter of doctrine opposing a matter of observation and experiment – guess which side of the argument wins?
So that believers are forced back on Templetonian arguments, and the comprehensive brainwashing that religious followers all get, and which we’ve been discussing on other threads.
Was Ruse always this obtuse, or did something happen after he gave evidence in the Arkansas trial ?
Blake Stacey said:
“How can science and religion have an “interface” if they are non-overlapping magisteria? Me is so confused . . . “
The principle of NOMA, as used by theists or accomodationists reminds me of an old sketch on the British comedy show “The Two Ronnies” where Ronnie Barker, playing a manager of an insurance company explains the principle of household insurance to Ronnie Corbet. Corbet goes to the office to make a claim after his house is burgled
Ronnie Barker: “I think you misunderstand the whole priciple of insurance.”
Ronnie Corbet: “Which is?”
Ronnie Barker: “Well, it’s like this;
Every month you give us a sum of money that is called the insurance premium.
…………………………….
Ronnie Corbet:……..”and?”
Ronnie Barker: Well, that’s it.
Noma seems to be regarded in the same way by accomodationists and the religious. There should be two sides to NOMA. Atheists should not be able to claim knowledge of any supposed supernatural realm since it does not impinge on the natural realm but the other side of that weapon is pointed at the believers. They, however refuse to acknowledge the implications of non overlapping realms. As mentioned before NOMA is a one way valve and its time we point this out every time they try this move.
Science and religion have a common ancestry in reason. Human reason created all the propositions and hypotheses of religion, and all those of science as well. But because they are all testable, some propositions of science have fallen by the wayside (eg phlogiston theory, geocentrism) while others are still current.
As the fundamental propositions of religion are not testable, they remain forever set in the hypothetical state, but not as empirically testable scientific ones.
NOMA as I understand it is short for ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ as outlined by Steven J Gould. The ‘non-overlapping’ part I think I understand, but the ‘magisteria’ bit gives me a bit of trouble. Catholic priests seem to try to be magisterial, including those of them who are into buggering choir boys. But would the domain of the Tooth Fairy be a ‘magisterium’?
It’s all a bit hard to understand.
Excellent, Sigmund. Clearly I’ve underestimated the two Ronnies!
“As mentioned before NOMA is a one way valve and its time we point this out every time they try this move.”
Exactly.
In a way Ayala’s winning the T. Prize makes this easier, because he’s been talking up the one way valve like mad. The contradiction appears in stark terms – Templeton rewards progress in the whatsit – concordat, detente, harmonization, whatever – between science and religion, yet Ayala’s stance is all ‘No Trespassing.’ For science. Only.
Okay, I think I may have got a handle on some significant disagreement.
Here’s what the ‘new atheists’ are saying:
“Religion evolved to explain the world and encode the social systems which concern human beings. The beliefs often provide comfort and a sense of community to those who believe, and scientists can compartmentalize their scientific approach and treat religion as an area outside their domain. HOWEVER, religion differs from philosophy or ethics by virtue of its supernatural claims, and these are not consistent with our scientific discoveries. Because it is not subject to rational checks and balances, religion too easily leads to irrational excesses. Religion is NOT a good thing.”
But here is how the critics of the ‘new atheists’ are responding:
“Because it’s not subject to rational checks and balances, religion can lead to irrational excesses, and its supernatural claims are not yet quite supported by current scientific discoveries. HOWEVER, what the new atheists fail to realize is that many scientists recognize that religion is outside the scientific domain, and place religion in a different compartment. These unsophisticated naysayers also ignore the fact that religion provides people with comfort and a sense of community, and they miss the significance of religion’s evolution in explaining and encoding the world and social systems which concern human beings. YAY RELIGION!!!”
Yes, I quite see how new atheists have totally missed the boat in their criticism.
Sastra: Interesting quote chunks, wherever you got them from.
Like some others who frequent this site, I used to be a Christian believer, selectively reading the Bible and using faith to get me past the less logical and internally consistent bits. But my downfall as a Christian began when I started examining other religions, and found their similarities. They all came from the same source, but it was clearly not God; it was human need, particularly for explanation, reassurance and social glue.
But the last can easily lead people of various religions into self-righteous and mutually destructive war with one another; both within and between religions.
Apropos of all this I think you might enjoy reading Johann Hari’s excellent article in Slate on the history of the idea of Heaven. It’s at http://www.slate.com/id/2249657/pagenum/all/#add-comment
Ian I think Sastra’s quote chunks represent her summary of the two attributed views as opposed to direct quotation.
Social glue can become so…sticky.
OB: Agreed. That possibility did occur to me also.
The contradiction appears in stark terms – Templeton rewards progress in the whatsit – concordat, detente, harmonization, whatever – between science and religion, yet Ayala’s stance is all ‘No Trespassing.’ For science. Only.
The odd part is, Ayala isn’t even set in stone on that point. He’s just very selective. His solution to the Problem of Evil consists of saying that bad designs in nature are the fault of the random component of evolution, allowing omni* God to have clean hands as regards such things as the 20% spontaneous abortion rate in women. Basically, science can say things about the religious magisteria, as long as it’s saying things that agree with his particular brand of faith (yes, he will not confirm/deny, but the contortions he makes when discussing science/religion make it painfully obvious he’s still a Catholic theist).
Ah – so science can say things about religion as long as they’re nice things. Muddier than ever. Ho hum.
Another bag of platitudes from Ruse, nothing of particular interest to say. He’s right, of course – Templeton can do what he wants with his money; funding science/religion reconciliation isn’t immoral. But those points aren’t relevant.
I’d be more interesting in Ruse expanding on the criticism of Templeton buried in his article. What about these stupid proposals which have attracted money? Does that distort where research interest is directed? Does it have other bad effects? And what about the issue of “prestige” attracting grants? What are the outcomes of that, for science and research?
Aren’t there, in fact, *ethical* concerns about the effects of funding stupidity and giving out grants on elitist grounds rather than merit?
Ruse has never been keen on NOMA. He called it “a lot less balanced and fair-minded than appears at first sight.”
He said that here :
http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/3044/Default.aspx
Compare that essay to this one and you can see Ruse is at least consistent. Particularly in being platitudinous.
Obviously it’s possible to be religious and a scientist! Even Dawkins knows that. But that’s not the point, which is: why don’t religious people apply the same standards to their religious beliefs that they would apply to their scientific beliefs?
I don’t particularly disagree with much of what Ruse says. Some of the criticism of Templeton is a bit tendentious. We’re talking about an organisation who funds a whole bunch of stuff – even Victor Stenger has taken its money before. If we think it is distorting scientists, let’s make that argument a sound one, based on real examples.
If Ruse thinks criticism of Templeton is badly-informed, then why doesn’t he write a devastating but better-informed critique? If Ruse thinks critics of religion are being a bit rude, why doesn’t he politely criticise religion?
There are seeds of a decent critique throughout Ruse’s work. He would be more interesting if he developed that critique.
But I guess he’s still trying to persuade fundamentalists that it’s safe to be an evolutionist. How’s that tactic going, by the way?
Dan