why you should honor thy scientists
In the past few years, there’s been a surge in articles which put science in the same light as religion. Instead of presenting it as a methodology for gaining knowledge, it’s being presented as a “tradition” or a “mindset” of materialists, skeptics and atheists. It’s wrong, misguided and I would even go as far as to say disrespectful. A scientist’s answer to an existential question comes from painstakingly documented research conducted over many years, every word dissected by highly trained experts. Answers of priests come from looking through a few verses of a collection of ancient religious letters and stories, then interpreted to say whatever he wants to say at the moment. How can you possibly put these radically different approaches in the same realm?
Have you ever noticed that there are no temples to science? And I don’t mean those metaphorical ones found in the purple prose of an author who desperately tries to tear down scientific institutions and their knowledge. I’m talking about literal temples where the faithful memorize the latest peer reviewed papers. There’s no book which science considers to be the source of all knowledge. A supercomputer who was elected to the post of Science Pope hasn’t made Newton and Darwin saints. Every bit of knowledge we have about our universe is always subject to change and those who can turn a particular discipline on its head are rewarded with prizes and fame. Dogmas in science are bitterly fought against with new facts and discoveries, and while at first, any new and groundbreaking theory has a tough time as it goes through peer review, the community will warm up to it when they see enough evidence for its accuracy.
Oddly enough, the fact that scientists can and will change how they view the universe is interpreted as a sign of weakness by religious zealots. But then again, if you believe you’re never wrong, seeing people around you change their ideas would be an alien experience. When your mind is gripped by dogmas, regardless of their validity, that’s the only thing you can understand. Every other viewpoint seems like another tradition or another religion and since you’ve been taught that all other religions are mistaken, then science must be wrong and its constant updates and revisions must be a sign of its high priests trying to salvage their failing institution. And so we get indignant articles by fundamentalists pontificating on theories they don’t understand, declaring that the greatest strength of the scientific method is actually a sign of inferiority over blind dogma.
However, it’s not just zealots who will equate scientific methodology with theistic dogmatism. In an attempt to appear completely objective and beyond any charge of bias, some writers will give equal importance to every opinion with seemingly no regard for whether it’s right or wrong. They think that giving a biologist who’s life was spent researching evolution and a random televangelist the same weight in their articles, will make them insightful reporters who diligently consider every side of a story. But the truth is that not everything you hear is accurate and if you’re reporting an incorrect assumption without actually doing your homework and noting that it’s wrong, you’re not an objective reporter or analyst. You’re a scribe afraid of being called biased.
So for those of you who write about public conflicts between scientists and religious activists, don’t be afraid to call science what it really is. An organized, systematic methodology for acquiring and refining knowledge. To present it as anything otherwise is just plain wrong and misleading.
Great post, thanks!
(Dugg and Twitted.)
I think I just fell in love with you . . . in an absolutely I’d-like-to-remain-on-opposite-ends-of-electronic-highways kinda’ way. That was supposed to be a compliment, but I’m not sure it came across as such. Ah well. *shrugs and retreats*
Good point, but I think you’re being a bit harsh on religion. Portions of Christianity (e.g. Congregationalists) long ago dispensed with the idea of a Supreme Leader. There are also liberal variants of religion that are non-dogmatic (United Church of Christ, Reform Judaism).
Aside from that, there is another big difference between religion and science — science tends to produce consensus, where as religion tends to produce division. As a historical process, scientific disputes tend to get resolved whereas religious disputes become entrenched and multiply.
One more thing…
When you say that there are no temples in science, what do you think of the classroom? It has a number of similarities. Among other things, science teaching is often dogmatic…focused on preparing students for an exam that will test their ability to regurgitate certain scientific doctrines.
@Adam – That’s what sometimes happens in science classes, but what is *also* supposed to happen is modeling the use of observing, hypothesizing, testing, and concluding as a methodology by which we explain how the world works.
Unfortunately, that process is not testable, by the standards of NCLB anyway…
Ugh. Why belittle religion to honor science? That is lazy and stupid. Science is the study of the physical world and can inform your spiritual feelings, but I see no reason to set the two against one another.
In the 18th and 19th centuries science was revered, especially in the natural world. Then the religous saw their power slipping away as people became more secular in their outlook. Now we have the struggle for the minds of the young. Power to Science!!!
Well said. Please continue to be intelligent and interesting!
“When you say that there are no temples in science, what do you think of the classroom?”
A bad science classroom is simply a place of route memorization. A good science classroom is a place where students experiment and come to conclusions the same way peer reviewers do, then confirm their findings to explain why things work the way they work.
Science classes and colleges are the “metaphorical temples to science” I mentioned in the post. They’re just labeled this way by those who want to show science as a dogma even though their goal is to experiment with scientific knowledge.
Your blog is interesting, but unfortunately doesn’t reflect what is really going on today. Science should be an unending quest to answer and explain everything around us, both on Earth, in our universe, and beyond. Instead, at its foundation lies a group of dogmatic cult leaders who banish, black list, and throw out anyone who deviates from their BELIEFS. In the scientific community one can only publish and promote new findings if their research is peer reviewed. Peer review provides another pair of qualified eyes to scrutinize the data thus giving an unbiased view point, which will either substantiate the scientist’s findings or disprove them. The peer review system is very effective if the scientists are completely unbiased. Many scientists, due to their philosophies, are refused the “privilege” of peer review. Today, science classrooms are “forbidden” to present alternative theories (theories that are founded on scientific evidence alone) and information in text books are often out dated, incorrect, or fed to kids as fact when they are really conjecture.
“Instead, at its foundation lies a group of dogmatic cult leaders who banish, black list, and throw out anyone who deviates from their BELIEFS.”
If this worldview was truly accurate, we wouldn’t be discussing quantum mechanics or modern cosmology. All of their contrarian findings would be tossed away.
What really goes on today is that people who can’t take no for an answer or accept that they were wrong in their conclusions take their views to the web and denounce “the establishment” for not being able to see their supposed brilliance.
logic4sure:
“Today, science classrooms are forbidden to present alternative theories (theories that are founded on scientific evidence alone)”
I assume you’re talking about Intelligent Design, which is based on no scientific evidence and is a tool to slip religious belief into classrooms.
Peter:
“Science is the study of the physical world and can inform your spiritual feelings, but I see no reason to set the two against one another.”
Any ‘spiritual’ belief system thats meaningful is going to be on the grounds of science. If a belief system says nothing about anything measurable, then how does it matter? Anyone who argues for a world where supernatural elements don’t make any measurable contribution to the world is essentially arguing for an atheists world.
Scientists should be respected for their work. A little humility along with it also helps. Acknowledging the human limits that knowledge is ever increasing and that we do not know everything is a good starting point. Religious folk should also add some humility acknowledging their own fallibility no matter how infallible the Creator might be.
It’s interesting to compare the view of history that was taught in the Soviet empire. Marx, the line went, had uncovered the ‘key to history’, and the progress of societies could be explained in terms of cause and effect. In fact, it extended this so far as to say that Marxist-Leninism predicted the future development of society. It was presented as being on a continuum with scientific knowledge.
As we all know, it differed from science in the way it refused to even countenance the possibility that it might be wrong, and suppressed any dissenting voices. Which isn’t to say that these things can’t or don’t happen in science too: the first instinct of any organisation is self preservation, after all. But nobody’s stopping the creobots from spouting their gibberish or even tabling their Academic Creedom bills. They just seem to think that people pointing and laughing at them is “persecution”.
The moral, I always say, is to trust the guy who says he might be wrong.
(Or maybe you shouldn’t . . .)
Umm, if science and religion are incompatible, why are there any religious scientists at all? (They do exist)
Although this has been at the back of my mind for a long time, I’ve never actually realised the completely invalid nature of the “preacher vs. scientist” stance in the media. You’re completely right, and it’s not something that would be tolerated over any other issue!
@ Robin – You’re missing the point slightly, but you’re right. There are many scientific people who happen to be theists too, but they are complex. I recently read an article about one prominent theist scientist (I forget his name) who went through the bible and cut it up, leaving only those parts that did not contradict (his) known science. He was left with very little to work with. He then decided to make a choice: the bible or science.
He chose the bible. Yes, even though he knew so much about the scientific world.
These people have a sort of compartmental-ism going on.
Whenever they are in church, they ignore the science and whenever they’re in the lab, they ignore the church. It isn’t right, helpful or useful.
Some of these comments demonstrate exactly *why* some people see science as “materialists, skeptics and atheists.” The attacks on religion are counterproductive for science. If science is confident in its results, it shouldn’t need to belittle those who believe in religion. Humility, as someone earlier said, is important for scientists.
Most significantly, I think it is important to remember that religious people aren’t merely seeking power, as some here have suggested. They are honest in their beliefs. They think they are right. Impugning their motives isn’t productive. You might believe that they are “sneaking” religious belief into the classroom via Intelligent Design, but they really don’t see it that way. They really think they are right. A better approach to dealing with this is to remain true to the scientific method: evidence. Instead, we get a lot of political posturing and accusations of intellectual dishonesty. Put yourself in their shoes. They often think exactly the same thing about scientists.
Both are wrong. It’s not about power. For both sides, it’s about truth. People think differently. Not everyone is wired to think scientifically. The best approach is to dump the personal attacks, the attacks on religion, and let the science speak for itself. Science isn’t against religion, but many scientists are. It’s time to stop this crap. Let science do its thing. If science is right, it will prevail. I’m pretty sure it will, in the end. But people need to come to it. Belittling them only makes them more resistant to the truth.
“If science is confident in its results, it shouldnt need to belittle those who believe in religion.”
That’s a non sequitur. Your level of civility doesn’t affect the validity of your research. If we know that 2+2 is 4, it doesn’t matter if we’re rude or gracious about. The result will still be 4.
“You might believe that they are sneaking religious belief into the classroom via Intelligent Design, but they really dont see it that way.”
I don’t “believe” that, I know it. I’ve interviewed people who see if firsthand, I read the literature that says how they plan to go about it. Yes, they think they’re rescuing our souls. But regardless how they see it, they have no evidence for their position and they are trying to sneak personal beliefs into science classrooms. Their perception is not going to change the reality of the situation.
“A better approach to dealing with this is to remain true to the scientific method: evidence. “
Take a look at some of the critical comments I get on my posts about evolution where I try to present vast amounts of evidence collected over a century of research. They just ignore it and go on repeating the same tripe over and over again. ID adherents are the ones who leap into political posturing and popularity contests when shown proof, and when they do, they drag scientists and science writers down with them.
“Not everyone is wired to think scientifically.”
Nobody is wired to think scientifically. It’s a process you have to learn. And thanks to religious zealots, careless administrators and shortsighted lawmakers, fewer and fewer people are being taught the skills needed for a scientific worldview. Instead of being told to question, experiment and seek proof, they’re being crammed with route memorization.
“Science isnt against religion, but many scientists are.”
Myers, Dawkins and Harris are not most scientists. The vast majority of scientists I know will only defend their field if they have to and prefer to just stay in their labs and work on their research rather than tangle with fundamentalists.
“If science is right, it will prevail. … But people need to come to it. Belittling them only makes them more resistant to the truth.”
They’re pretty resistant to it in the first place and there are plenty of activists who want to make it even more so. If we just let them do as they please and expect them to come around after being swayed by nice people in lab coats, we’re not even going to have a science education curriculum to worry about.
OK, it’s nearly a year later, but what the hell:
“If science is right, it will prevail. I’m pretty sure it will, in the end. But people need to come to it.”
I find it incredible that someone can make such a statement, if science is right. We are surrounded by artifacts that demonstrate the “rightness of science”. The person who wrote that was using a device and system that demonstrate the “rightness of science”.
How blinkered or stupid do you have to be?
Think of life 200 years ago, and then tell me that science is not right, that it has not prevailed.
RELIGION& SCIENCE CONNECT!BIBLE CODE UNLOCKED!-According to the Bible the world has been created in six days,but according to the Science this process has taken billions of years.If we exclude the difference in time and we pay attention to the SEQUENCE,we will see that there is no contradiction between both,but only the question-why in the Bible things happened so fast?There is an answer and it`s in the Bible itself.Moses described the Creation from his own sight as an eyewitness.Where and when he saw It,how could he have seen something happen before his existence?Answer:For forty days he has been at the mount Sinai where he got information about the past,present and future.The Creation had been REcreated to him in six days there,he had seen how the already existing world had been made.The long process of evolution had been shown to him in the first six days and the SEVENTH day had been dedicated to human`s appearing.After that he had seen the difference between Adam`s origin and Eve`s one.Adam comes from the dirt in the process of evolution,but Eve comes from DNA material out his body,which marks another jump for the evolution or in other words-the”missing link” which Science is looking for.The Creation continue and The Next Jump Is Coming…2012 ?!