Tag: Religion and science

  • Time warp

    Is it 2009 again? Salon has run yet another 2009ish article ranting about HitchensHarrisDawkins and their misunderstanding of the science-religion debate. Oy.

    Sana Saeed, the author, lets us know that she spent her childhood loving science and also loving religion. Then she lets us know she was the same way as a teenager.

    It never once occurred to me during those years, and later, that there could be any sort of a conflict between my faith and science; to me both were part of the same things: This universe and my existence within it.

    And yet, here we are today being told that the two are irreconcilable; that religion begets an anti-science crusade and science pushes anti-religion valor. When did this become the only conversation on religion and science that we’re allowed to have?

    When? Hm, let me think about that.

    Never.

    It never became the only conversation on religion and science that we’re allowed to have. The opposite conversation is all over the place, along with lots of conversations somewhere between the two.

    Next she explains that Christianity is not the only religion. Got it. Then she explains why there is no conflict between religion and science.

    The absence of a centralized religious clergy and authority in Sunni Islam allows for individual and scholarly theological negotiation – meaning that there is not, necessarily, a “right” answer embedded in Divine Truth to social and political questions. Some of the most influential and fundamental Islamic legal texts are filled with arguments and counter-arguments which all come from the same source (divine revelation), just different approaches to it.

    In other words: There’s plenty of wiggle room and then some. On anything that is not established as theological Truth (e.g. God’s existence, the finality of Prophethood, pillars and articles of faith), there is ample room for examination, debate and disagreement, because it does not undercut the fabric of faith itself.

    Ummmmmm…that’s a very large exclusion. There is is ample room for examination, debate and disagreement on everything except God’s existence, the finality of Prophethood, pillars and articles of faith…which is a fuck of a lot of except.

    That except is, not least, a giant bias built in to every kind of examination, debate and disagreement, as well as inquiry and investigation and all the rest of it. If you have to defend the assertion that something you call “God” exists before you can even get started, how free can your inquiry really be?

  • Table 1

    Returning to this question of the political nature of the conflict (or non-conflict) between religion and science, in Thomas Dixon’s reply to Eric –

    I stand by my emphasis on the political aspects of all of this. Claims about the nature of reality and who has the authority to discover and describe it, and by what methods, are questions about power, and thus political. I don’t say that the Scopes or Galileo cases were nothing but politics, but I do say they were political.

    They were, but speaking broadly (as we are, because the subject is religion and science as such, not just particular incidents touching on religion and science), science is not inherently political in the way that religion is.

    Science is of course contingently political, and the politics in question can be very interesting and significant and worth researching. Science as an institution and as a career is often very political. But science itself, science as such – the methodology, the epistemology, the actual work – isn’t and can’t be.

    That’s not true of religion. Religion is inherently political in a way that science isn’t.

    That’s because science has to check itself against the way the world is, and religion doesn’t. Science is about what is there whether humans can figure it out or not, and religion isn’t. (It claims to be, but it isn’t.)

    Remember Carl Zimmer’s collection of scientists commenting on the NASA research? And Jerry Coyne’s post and the comments?

    Now imagine that happening with a religious…assertion.

    Nothing, right? The mind goes blank. There couldn’t be such a thing. There could be controversy and fuss, but it would all be just people disagreeing. It would be political. It wouldn’t be

    1) Figure S2 shows that the -As/+P cells have an As/C ratio of about 1.5 x 10-5, while +As/-P cells have an As/C ratio of about 3 x10-5. -As/+P cells have a P/C ratio of about 0.005, while +As/-P cells have a P/C ratio of about 0.002. These are not very big differences. Furthermore, these data suggest that the cells actually contain more P than As under both growth conditions. However, Table 1 shows that -As/+P cells contain 0.19% As and 0.02% P by dry weight. These data are not consistent with the data shown in Figure S2. (By the way, since the atomic weight of As is 2.4x that of P, the molar ratio is actually 4 rather than 10. But the data are still not consistent with Figure S2.)

    See? “Table 1 shows that -As/+P cells contain 0.19% As and 0.02% P by dry weight” isn’t political. Religious disagreements don’t have any “Table 1 shows that -As/+P cells contain 0.19% As and 0.02% P by dry weight.” Religion has a lot of time for politics because it spends no time on what Table 1 shows.

    So both are political in some sense, but science isn’t ultimately political. With so many scientists watching each other’s every move, sooner or later the politics is going to be shoved aside by what Table 1 shows.