The whole framing/ “screechy monkeys” fracas led to a number of people asking for more frequent postings emphasizing a more moderate view of the great science and religion flamewars. As I said at the time, I’m a little hesitant about this, because there just isn’t that much there that crosses the posting threshold for me– I just don’t care enough about most of the incidents that generate noise here to deal with the hassles that come with posting.
In an effort to do a little good by speaking out more, I’ll try to compromise by posting occasional collections of science-and-religion related links, with some commentary. This might be weekly, or it might not– I’m not willing to commit, in keeping with my apathetic agnosticism.
— What better to kick this off with than the Pope delivering an address to Catholic educators, in which he encouraged them to, well, be more Catholic. In other exciting news, a bear crapped in the woods somewhere.
OK, there’s a bit more to it than that. This is, after all, a part of a conflict between faith and reason that goes back to the days of Aquinas and Augustine and those guys. The unfortunate Galileo incident has tended to obscure the fact that, over the last century or so, the Catholic Church has actually been reasonably good about scientific and intellectual matters. Some of the quoted bits fall squarely in that recent tradition:
“At times, however, the value of the Church’s contribution to the public forum is questioned. It is important therefore to recall that the truths of faith and of reason never contradict one another. The Church’s mission, in fact, involves her in humanity’s struggle to arrive at truth. In articulating revealed truth she serves all members of society by purifying reason, ensuring that it remains open to the consideration of ultimate truths. Drawing upon divine wisdom, she sheds light on the foundation of human morality and ethics, and reminds all groups in society that it is not praxis that creates truth but truth that should serve as the basis of praxis.”
Some of it, however, is downright creepy:
“In regard to faculty members at Catholic colleges and universities, I wish to reaffirm the great value of academic freedom. In virtue of this freedom you are called to search for the truth wherever careful analysis of evidence leads you. Yet it is also the case that any appeal to the principle of academic freedom in order to justify positions that contradict the faith and the teaching of the Church would obstruct or even betray the university’s identity and mission; a mission at the heart of the Church’s munus docendi and not somehow autonomous or independent of it,” the pope said.
Admittedly, I would probably be less creeped out by this were it not for his past as the head of the Inquisition, and my suspicion that he’s actually Giblets.
But, look, none of what he said appears to be all that shocking or alarming. The Pope thinks that Catholic universities should hew closely to Catholic doctrine– that’s his job. At the same time, he’s constrained by the fact that the Church has a long tradition of encouraging scholarly and intellectual activity. They’re not going to be burning books (or heretics) any time soon.
Personally, I would come down more on the side of reason than faith in these matters, but then, they didn’t choose to make me Pope.
— What science-and-religion post would be complete without a link to Matt Nisbet? So here’s one, to a post that starts with some remarks by Francis Collins, and swings off into predictable stuff about Dawking, Myers, and Expelled.
Actually, the real meat of this is the Pew Forum interview with Collins, who says a bunch of really good stuff. I think his opening statement:
If you see God as the creator of the universe – in all of its amazing complexity, diversity and awesome beauty – then science, which is, of course, a means of exploring nature, also becomes a means of exploring God’s creative abilities. And so, for me, as a scientist who is also a religious believer, research activities that look like science can also be thought of as opportunities to worship.
Is about as concise a summary as you could ask for regarding how religious belief– not just the literalist-fundie caricature of belief– can not only uneasily coexist but be perfectly compatible with a career in science.
— Speaking of Nisbet, he also points to a University of Buffalo study that provides scientific proof that scientists are not necessarily atheists. Well, social-scientific proof, anyway.
— Finally, Jeremy Bruno offers a sort of atheist origin story about how the study of religion led him to atheism. I note this not because it’s a particularly unique story (the basic outline is pretty common), or because he offers an especially compelling case (it’s pretty standard stuff). I note it because it’s polite, reasonable, and not particularly insulting to people who do believe, and those are all things I’d like to see more of around this issue.
The Eastern Orthodox church is the church of no ideas. It persists without schism, offering hope to its dismal adherents and destroying their futures. The Church of Rome is the church of bad ideas. It murders, rapes (pederasts preferred), plunders, scourges, and burns across history while fragmenting into a hundred hateful pieces. It offers hope to and destroys the futures of its dismal adherents. Judaism and Islam arrive at the same destination, as do Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto…
Science has string theory that cannot be tested. Religion has Creation Science that cannot be contested. Regression toward the mean.
P pope, C, catholic, B bear, D defecates in woodlands
((ây)(Py & Cy)â(âx)(Bx & Dx))?
The rat-faced bastard is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He first says that ” the truths of faith and of reason never contradict one another” and then turns around and warns against contradicting the church.
Uncle Al, exactly how do all of these religions destroy the futures of their dismal adherents? And where is the use of claiming that they do?
I am loathe to co-opt a thread, however, just for you Rebecca… If we wish a future in which every child’s utterance bears the same weight as its adult oppressors’ we must begin by destroying the hateful framework of individual worth.
Hindus have 36 crores of gods – 360 million deities. How is India doing? Can God make a collection plate so vast that even He cannot fill it? Sure! ALL OF THEM. Every priest says, “Hodie mihi, cras tibi.” Only a fool believes in post-mortem escrow closing.
This is your choice, Rebecca,
A) “Our children will live to see that perfect world in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality – one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock – all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.”
or
B) “I’m a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!”
In the whole of human history across the entire planet not one deity has volunteered Novocain. “Poenitentiam agite adpropinquavit enim regnum caelorum” omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam esse voluit. Non tamen solam intendit interiorem, immo interior nulla est, nisi foris operetur varias carnis mortificationes. Choose wisely.
I’m not terribly surprised or dismayed by this either. I don’t even know if my status as agnostic apostate should lead me to be more or less surprised or dismayed.
If I were a researcher at a Catholic University (as opposed to the Catholic University of America, even) I’d probably feel a little differently, especially if I were working on a matter where the Church considers itself to have some particular interest justifying their meddling and active scrutiny, e.g., genetic or fertility therapies, much less stem cell research. But in that circumstance, I don’t think I’d be working at those universities in the first place.
I’m hardly a fan of the Church– I left, after all, and haven’t even so much as looked back over my shoulder in reconsideration– but I don’t really see them as threatening. The days when the Church snapped its fingers and even European governments danced its tune are long gone, and they really don’t seem to have the desire or the will to return to that mode, which is good. There are other religious groups, Christian and non-Christian, which would love to have that ability, but thankfully what they have in zeal, they gave up for in widespread organizational power.
In short, I guess I can be annoyed, bemused, or even offended by what the Church may say, but I’m not going to fear them. I don’t even see the Church on a trajectory whereby I would fear them 25 or 50 years from now.
Thanks for sharing these links. My own blog Exploring Our Matrix devotes a lot of posts to discussing religion and science, although from a somewhat different angle (I’m a religion professor). If you ever have a few moments to pay it a visit, I am always eager to find out what those working in the natural sciences have to say about my attempts to treat these subjects accurately, in connection with my own area of expertise as well as theirs.
I do think that biologists and physicists, for understandable reasons, tend to view the relationship between religion and their own scientific discipline, and the appropriateness of referring to God in that context, somewhat differently.