God and Science Don't Mix

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html
A scientist can be a believer. But professionally, at least, he can't act like one.
By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS
 
My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.
– J.B.S. Haldane
“Fact and Faith” (1934)
Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled “Science, Faith and Religion.” I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?
I ended up being one of two panelists labeled “atheists.” The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno. Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. The moderator of the session, Bill Blakemore, a reporter with some religious inclination, surprised me by bursting out in response, “Then I guess you are a rational atheist.”
Our host was presumably responding to all those so-called fundamentalist atheists who have recently borne the brunt of intense attacks following the success of books like Sam Harris's “The End of Faith,” and Richard Dawkins's “The God Delusion.”
These scientists have been castigated by believers for claiming that science is incompatible with a belief in God. On the one hand, this is a claim that appears manifestly false – witness the two Catholic scientists on my panel. And on the other hand, the argument that science suggests God is a delusion only bolsters the view of the of the fundamentalist religious right that science is an atheist enemy that must either be vanquished or assimilated into religion.
Coincidentally, I have appeared numerous times alongside Ken Miller to defend evolutionary biology from the efforts of those on various state school boards who view evolution as the poster child for “science as the enemy.” These fundamentalists are unwilling to risk the possibility that science might undermine their faith, and so they work to shield children from this knowledge at all costs. To these audiences I have argued that one does not have to be an atheist to accept evolutionary biology as a reality. And I have pointed to my friend Ken as an example.
This statement of fact appears to separate me from my other friends, Messrs. Harris and Dawkins. Yet this separation is illusory. It reflects the misperception that the recent crop of vocal atheist-scientist-writers are somehow “atheist absolutists” who remain in a “cultural and historical vacuum” – in the words of a recent Nature magazine editorial.
But this accusation is unfair. Messrs. Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science.
J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a “god, angel, or devil” will interfere with one's experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.
Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.
While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an “atheist absolutist,” a “reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions.”
When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.
Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, the true believers in each of these faiths are atheists regarding the specific sacred tenets of all other faiths. Christianity rejects the proposition that the Quran contains the infallible words of the creator of the universe. Muslims and Jews reject the divinity of Jesus.
So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God, and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that these issues are not purely academic. The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.
Perhaps the most important contribution an honest assessment of the incompatibility between science and religious doctrine can provide is to make it starkly clear that in human affairs – as well as in the rest of the physical world – reason is the better guide.
Mr. Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. His most recent book is “Hiding in the Mirror” (Viking, 2005).

Re: God and Science Don't Mix

Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God.

a quick google search for ”real santa” exposes the falsity of the claim for rationality here; one can find much in the way of proof that there was a 'real' st. nick, and that even now, multitudes that fit much of the bill, spread joy and cheer and distribute gifts to needy children in keeping with the tradition.  to say that 'there is no santa claus' is lacking in specifity to be accurate and therefore rational.  it can, however be said that there does not seem to be one individual who can deliver gifts to all the children in the world in a single evening, or who can defy gravity and physics further - levitating up chimneys by placing his finger alongside his nose - these are specific claims that seem absurd, and this is where the distinction should be drawn if one is to make claims on being logical.

the same holds with many of the atheist's arguments against the possibility of the existence of God, or the validity of religious pursuit.  when these folks attempt to castigate God or religion they tend to group it all together into one flawed perspective, and in so doing, they expose the fallacy and limited scope of their arguments, for where matters of God and religion are concerned, the perspectives are myriad and not all are in disagreement with the findings of science. 

another good example of irrational claims of rationality in the context of proof against God: ”one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a “god, angel, or devil” will interfere with one's experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.”  and  “So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God,…” 
 
these claims are only reasonably to the extent that God is defined as an interfering God, one who would meddle with the physical constants of a universe.  one who, despite having to necessarily be orders of magnitude smarter than any scientist in order to create such a universe in the first place, apparently should feel the need for some sort of corrective action just as the experimenter is conducting his/her research!?!  the idea is absurd independent of the existence of God.

these so-called atheists who make claims to reason and logic, would add great credibility to such claims by being more precise in their language.  specifiy, the espoused quality or nature of God that a particular religion or spiritual person has put forward if you feel so compelled.  cite the quotation from doctorine, or interpretation thereof and maintain some credibility.  just as the author did here, “Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.” and unfortunately, nowhere else that i noticed.

imo, science and logic are tools for discovery, not rejection or elimination: a magnifying glass for investigation, not a hammer for destruction.  even if we think we know a particular story didn't happen the way a 'religious' story presents it, all of our experience only builds on the probability that it did not; the possibility that it indeed did is ever irrefutable, even if we decide it only an astronimically miniscule fraction of a possibility, logically, no one will ever really know.  anyway, you'd probably be hard pressed to find a follower of a particular religion who took such a story literally anyway, as with the author's catholic colleagues, people have been finding value in these stories for centuries not because they found the literal unfolding of events important, but the interaction between the characters and the messages the stories conveyed. 

gotta run for now.  i'm sure we'll continue to find all sorts of discussion material on this ever popular and controversial topic.

Re: God and Science Don't Mix

good post, joshua. i agree with you, that argument is rather ingenious and flawed at a basic level. 

i imagine that very few “sane” adults believe that one individual santa claus actually exists, whereas many, many people, including many scientists and other highly thoughtful and intelligent people, believe God exists. to compare the concept of santa claus to God is just silly and demeaning with regard to theists.

unfortunately, i find that atheists “on a mission” can be all too likely to make these kinds of dismissive remarks about theists, and i find it really too bad, as it just tends to anger and alienate theists rather than to motivate them to think more clearly about their presuppositions, which i suppose is the actual goal.

i much prefer a more respectful dialogue which doesn't assume that the other (for me as a theist, that would be the atheist) is too dim to see a very obvious reason why his or her position is untenable.

love,

nicole