“Improving your reasoning.” Courses with names like this are now staples of philosophy departments, including mine. They include a bit of informal logic, discussion of common fallacies, exercises in reading a text and understanding it, and so forth. They are loved by students because they are not too demanding—no real mathematical expertise needed, as with symbolic logic—and they are often structured to satisfy various distribution requirements. Faculty like them because they are easy to teach. You don’t need much preparation for one of these, especially now that there are many excellent texts, with all sorts of exercises. Administrations like them because they fill the seats with warm bottoms and that after all is what education is all about.
If you are sensing that I am a little bit cynical you are right. But this column is in a way an apology, because I was wrong. Courses like this are really needed. This fact has been brought home to me very vividly by the responses to my recent piece on science, religion, and my constitutional worries. I pointed out that many important scientists—including my fellow Brainstormer, the distinguished evolutionist David Barash—argue that if you take science seriously then you really cannot take religion seriously. When I was a kid, many homes had on the wall a little model house with two front doors. In one stood a little man and in the other a little woman. When it rained, the little man came out; when it was fine, he vanished and the little woman came out. (I presume it was done with catgut or something like that.) These scientists regard religion and science like that. One or the other but not both.
I expressed the worry that this might get us into constitutional hot water, because the First Amendment has been interpreted as prohibiting the teaching of religion in state-supported public schools. If in fact science does promote atheism, what is to stop fundamentalists and others (like supporters of Intelligent Design Theory) from arguing that science is therefore in a sense as religious as anything promoted by them? Sauce for the Creationist goose should be sauce for the evolutionist gander.
Oh my goodness! Has this ever upset the little trogs all over the net! I have been called just about everything. I have also been completely misread, and this is why I am now all for “Improving your reasoning” courses! What I did not say was that science implies atheism. In fact, if you look at what I said—and what I have said elsewhere (which I will link but not mention in case I upset again another commentator who took great umbrage at my daring to mention books that I have written)—my absolutely central belief is that science does not imply atheism. Science and religion are independent, or (to use a term of the late Stephen Jay Gould) they are different Magisteria. What I said was that some people think that science and religion are mutually exclusive and that that worries me. I also said that if they are (mutually exclusive) then we will have to live with this, but I want to see some arguments for the case. And also, more importantly, I wanted someone more knowledgeable than I to ease my mind about the legal aspects of things.
So at the risk of being a bore, let me say again what is worrying me. I will try to keep it to words of one syllable but cannot promise. The constitution has been interpreted to say that you cannot teach religion in schools, in the sense that you cannot offer religious views in science classes as alternatives to science views. Separating science and religion is going to be messy at the best of times, and we all realize that a certain pragmatism is needed here. You cannot be so strict as to say “don’t teach anything that goes against someone’s religious views.” That would rule out geology in the face of people who believe in Noah’s flood. So the way that things have gone—in the Arkansas Creation Trial of 1981 (and I was a witness there so I know) and in the Dover Intelligent Design Trial of 2005—is to say that you can teach science but that the intent must be to teach science and not religion. In other words, the fact that someone, somewhere has held something in the name of religion is not enough to kick the alternative out of the schools. But what you cannot do—and this is the absolutely crucial point—is teach something that is really religion, even though you don’t mention God or whatever. Intelligent Designers don’t mention God in their “scientific” case, but we know (as they know) that this is a ruse, and that really they are pushing a religious agenda. That has been ruled constitutionally illicit.
Now this is my worry. I don’t think science, including evolution, is religious. I don’t think that David Barash, when he goes into the classroom, is really pushing a religious agenda. I really don’t. But, even though I have lifted my cynicism about philosophy courses, my cynicism about America and its legal system remains. Suppose somewhere down the road—let us say 2014 when Obama has been defeated and the Tea Party Revolution is successfully completed—a case is brought in some enlightened part of the country like Texas or Kansas. The Intelligent Design people (or people of this ilk) say: “Of course we have a religious agenda. We don’t deny this. But we don’t want to talk about it in schools, even if what we do talk about has implications. However, note that the evolutionists (and others) also have a religious agenda, one of humanistic atheism. As long as they don’t mention this in class, we are happy to have their stuff taught. But we are asking for equal treatment. Our opponents have a religious agenda, so you cannot kick us out because we have one too. Moreover, don’t think that we are simply talking about fringe figures. We are talking about leading members of the scientific community. Back in 2011, the man who was leading the charge against ‘accommodationists’—people who think that science and religion can be reconciled—was the man who had just been elected president of the leading society in America for professional evolutionists.”
With the right judge, in the right place, in the right climate, I am far from convinced that we evolutionists would get the same favorable judgment—evolution in, Creationism out—as we got in Arkansas or Dover. And given the present conservative makeup of the Supreme Court—something that has every indication of being around in 2014—I am far from convinced that the argument would fail with them too. Some of the justices (Antonin Scalia for one) are already on record as saying that they think things have gone too far.
So what am I saying? Let me repeat: I am not saying that science implies atheism. My own position is the very opposite. I am saying that some scientists think that it does. I am not saying that they should not say this and I am not asking them to shut up. If they are right (and if they are wrong), then so be it. I am saying however that we who love science have a responsibility. If you do think that science implies atheism, then offer some good arguments to that effect. Don’t just slag me off, satisfying though that may be. And then go on to show me why the worries that I have expressed in the last few paragraphs are misguided and unneeded. Remember, we are not just dealing with correct interpretations of the law, but with realities. If we were just dealing with the former, then Gore would have been elected president in 2000. Until the appearance of those arguments that speak to my worries, I shall continue to fear that we who love science are shooting ourselves in both feet.
33 Responses to Science, Religion, and the Constitution–Again
philosophy - January 3, 2011 at 4:13 pm
It will be interesting to see whether that new president (Coyne) uses his office to strengthen his “charge against accommodationists.” (I suspect he won’t.)
fizmath - January 3, 2011 at 4:19 pm
We will always have these conflicts as long as the government tries to maintain a monopoly on education. You will never get people to agree on what should be taught in state funded schools. Separate school and state and these controversies disappear. We don’t have public grocery stores and we don’t need public schools.
frankschmidt - January 3, 2011 at 4:30 pm
One strategy that our side hasn’t exploited enough is “divide and conquer.” Let the fundies fight it out with the Episcopalians, Catholics, Congregationalists, etc. over what the Bible actually teaches. Most young-earth creationists aren’t aware that their version of Creation derives from the Seventh Day Adventists and not from their own denominational tradition, for example.
Our side has to avoid being sucked into the same trap. We don’t need to fight with each other about whether the unmeasurable and undetectable exists, whether it might exist, or whether thinking that it might exist is good or bad. Let’s address the real problem: the appalling ignorance about biology in this country.
crazyfrog - January 3, 2011 at 6:43 pm
This argument makes no sense to me. How is atheism a religion? It rejects religion based on the assumption that there are no gods. To any extent that scientific thinking leads to atheism, this cannot be seen as promoting religion (a certain worldview perhaps but it is not a religious one). Maybe I’m missing something in the definition of atheism but the author has made no convincing statements that it should be interpreted as religion.
Furthermore, to teach science is to teach objective, data-based evaluation of the physical word and the evidence it provides us. Whether any conclusions to be interpolated from that practice and the knowledge generated that bear on the existence or not of god(s) is not within the realm of scientific teaching. Ergo, the concern of the author for such an argument to hold up seems absurd.
Having said this, so much in our current political and legal climate has so little to do with rational thought that it could just come true. Ergo, the argument of the author that we need more students to take introductory reasoning courses holds very true.
(Also I think it would be very helpful to actually teach religious studies–as part of social studies–to more students so they could understand the difference between science and religion better.)
professormiller - January 3, 2011 at 7:42 pm
It is a common fact that academe is hostile to organized religion, particularly Christianity. I am not surprised the Chronicle didn’t touch this story from the University of Kentucky (a second-rate research university) in which Dr. Martin Gaskell, a prominent astronomer with a CV stronger than many of his colleagues, was denied (according to Emails amongst those on the hiring committee as these have been released to the public)a position because, according to the hiring committee, he is “potentially evangelical.” This is now in Federal court and Dr. Gaskell will, of course, win. The university clearly violated his constitutional (and the university’s own policies) by basing a hiring decision upon one’s religion. It is an outrage. The close minded atheists that so fear religion, especially Christianity, have now brought national attention to this common (but secretive) hiring practice.
In academe today, in order to be considered a “true” academic in a state university you must not admit being “conservative” or, even worse to the secular humanists, “Christian.” Now, imagine if Emails were released stating that someone was denied a position because they practiced, oh, Islam. The outcry would be immediate and most likely from some of the Atheists themselves.
The case raises important questions about the perception of compatibility between religious and scientific views. Recently, the liberal NYTimes printed:
“For the plaintiff, the smoking gun is an e-mail dated Sept. 21, 2007, from a department staff member, Sally A. Shafer, to Dr. Cavagnero and another colleague. Ms. Shafer wrote that she did an Internet search on Dr. Gaskell and found links to his notes for a lecture that explores, among other topics, how the Bible could relate to contemporary astronomy.
“Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk with,” Ms. Shafer wrote, “but potentially evangelical. If we hire him, we should expect similar content to be posted on or directly linked from the department Web site.”
In his deposition, Dr. Cavagnero recalled reading Ms. Shafer’s e-mail and said he discussed Dr. Gaskell’s faith with the department chairman at the University of Nebraska, where Dr. Gaskell worked at the time. Dr. Cavagnero also said a colleague, Moshe Elitzur, worried that Dr. Gaskell “had outspoken public views about creationism and evolution.”
As Dr. Gaskell’s attorney indicates, being “potentially evangelical” is a troubling basis on which to consider an employee at a public university. While the school is surely within its rights to consider his academic views and teaching record, federal law prohibits religious discrimination.
So “Science-Religion and the Constitution Again,” is a proper title for this article. Without the constitution such blatant cases of bias and discrimination would go unchecked. Thankfully, this case will shed light on many other illegal hiring practices that are committed every year by public institutions across the nation. Anyone that thinks science and religion are at odds have never truly studied neither the philosophy of science nor the philosophy of religion. The conflict is man-made.
The case goes to Federal court in February and the university will lose as there is not a viable defense. Students should be exposed to critical thinking and theology without the indoctrination techniques used by many in the humanities today.
And when it comes to astronomy/science and religion: Anyone ever take time to see the research being conducted by the astronomers/astrophysicists (and, oh my…priests or monks) at the Vatican Observatory?
And as important as this story is as it deals, guess what, the Chronicle will not touch it. No big surprise.
professormiller - January 3, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Also, when defining what religion is, “liberalism” (as it is used in today’s context) fits the bill very well. I know, everyone here hates the name…Anne Coulter (who probably has more intelligence in her little finger than most of the “academics” that parade their ideology here) but her book “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” angers the left wing wind bags in academe because an Ivy league educated attorney wound up being (*GASP*) conservative.
Liberalism fits the definition of religion. Atheism and the “new atheism” closely resembles it.
professormiller - January 4, 2011 at 7:04 am
I correct myself: The chronicle did cover the blatant discrimination against Dr. Gaskell at the University of Kentucky. My apologies for missing this.
texastextbook - January 4, 2011 at 9:17 am
It’s no wonder John Boehner cries. If I were a conservative and tasked with satisfying evangelicals while also being a person who’d flunked out of the military (making my very existence dependant upon the continued good will of someone fitter than myself), I’d cry, too.
walsh05 - January 4, 2011 at 11:15 am
A very interesting article. One suspects that if science classrooms are not to push any views on religion either way (as in teaching that science is incompatible with belief in supernatural deities) then science classrooms have to remain “neutral” with regard to questions about God. They would have to take no stand on the issue, one way or the other. This is not to say that where religion makes factual claims (e.g., the age of the earth by young earth creationists) that science cannot speak up. But with respect to supernatural entities that lie outside the physical world, science should officially remain silent. If not science classes run the risk of taking sides on religious questions and thus violating the separation of church and state. It seems that Eugene Kelly is right. There’s a difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism and scientists should learn the difference, not merely because it is true, but because it’s relevant to how science should be taught.
mendiklibrary - January 4, 2011 at 3:37 pm
You are right to wory about the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia has already weighed in on the anti-evolution side, in a 1986 case, Edwards v. Aguilar, in which he wrote, in dissent, that an obviously religion-based Louisiana statute was a valid attempt to promote academic freedom and prevent “indoctrination” of students. With a conservative majority on the Court determined to weaken the protections of the Establishment Clause, we face what was formerly unthinkable – a decision upholding an anti-evolution effort by a state school board or legislature. For those interested in a thorough analysis of the issue, see
http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/Newman.pdf
Steve Newman
walsh05 - January 4, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Sorry, I meant “Eugene Scott was right”…..about the distinction I refer to.
drj50 - January 5, 2011 at 9:19 am
There is an interesting and relevant article noted in Arts & Letters Daily. The article, “Philosophy Lives: Why Stephen Hawking’s attempt to banish natural theology only shows why we need it” by John Haldane, appeared in First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives)
Haldane writes: “‘Philosophy,’ according to Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, in their new book The Grand Design, ‘is dead.’ It has ‘not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics, [and] scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.’”
They continue: “‘[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit. Because there is a law of gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.’”
In the first quotation, the authors stake out a claim for science, not just to describe the natural world, but to answer larger questions that have been the province of philosophy and, by extension, religion. Science has become the sole way we obtain knowledge. By the end of the second quotation, we are clearly situated in the realm of religion, as “science” has become “scientism,” an all-explaining, and hence religious, world-view.
The quotation illustrates clearly the confusion of “methodological naturalism” and “metaphysical naturalism” (see comment by walsh05 above). Note the quick transition from “can explain” to “is the reason.” But “can explain” is not the same as “is the reason,” logically or in any other way. An explanation of how something could happen is not the same as proving how it did happen. It does not even conform to the classic understanding of scientific proof (repeatable empirical experiments rather than complex mathematical equations that only few can understand). It is exactly this sort of overreaching that moves science into scientism and launches questions about the role of this kind of “science” in schools. Students in our schools need to learn what scientists believe about how the world and life came to be. But students also need to know that, while many believe that the explanation science gives is the whole story, many others do not.
supertatie - January 9, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Gee, here’s a thought: what about teaching TRUTH? Isn’t it possible that there is a God? Isn’t it possible that God created everything? What if such a God existed? If so, then wouldn’t all of the sciences be consistent with some true religion? After all, if (for example) God created astrophysics, then why would proving principles of astrophysics disprove God?
What’s the big deal? There have been religious scientists since there have been scientists.
professormiller - January 17, 2011 at 8:48 am
Indeed, supertatie, and there exists more narrow, close-minded scientists than theologians. Nevertheless, liberal academics are going to always demonize religion, especially Christianity: Let the University of Kentucky be a case in point! What an embarrassment to higher education the entire university is. Talk about the need to “clean house.”