Skip to comments.A New Foundation for Positive Cultural Change: Science and God in the Public Square
Posted on 10/28/2006 3:22:14 PM PDT by betty boop
Moral conservatives were shocked to read a thinly veiled defense of infanticide in the New York Times a few years ago by MIT [now of Harvard] professor Steven Pinker. But they would be even more disturbed if they saw Pinkers justification for his views in a book that appeared about the same time.
In How the Mind Works, Pinker argues that the fundamental premise of ethics has been disproved by science. Ethical theory, he writes, requires idealizations like free, sentient, rational, equivalent agents whose behavior is uncaused. Yet, the world, as seen by science, does not really have uncaused events.
In other words, moral reasoning assumes the existence of things that science tells us are unreal. Pinker tries to retain some validity for ethics nonetheless by offering a double truth theory: A human being, he says, is simultaneously a machine and a sentient agent, depending on the purposes of the discussion.
Its astonishing that anyone, especially an MIT professor, would be capable of sustaining two such contradictory ideas. But in fact, it is quite common, says Phillip Johnson in The Wedge of Truth. Since the Enlightenment, knowledge has split into two separate and often contradictory spheres: facts (science) versus values (ethics, religion, the humanities).
The trouble with this division is that eventually one side comes to dominate. This is the key to understanding why America is embroiled in a culture clash today, Johnson argues and why moral and religious conservatives are losing. The direction in intellectual history since the Enlightenment has been to grant science the authority to pronounce what is real, true, objective, and rational, while relegating ethics and religion to the realm of subjective opinion and nonrational experience.
Once this definition of knowledge is conceded, then any position that appears to be backed by science will ultimately triumph in the public square over any position that appears based on ethics or religion. The details of the particular debate do not matter. For, in principle, we do not enact into public policy and we do not teach in the public schools views based private opinion or tribal prejudice.
Johnson gives a rich description of how the fact/value dichotomy operates. Its origin is generally traced to Descartes, who proposed a sharp dualism between matter and mind. It was not long before the realm of matter came to be seen as more certain, more objective, than the realm of mind. The subject matter of physics is indeed much simpler than metaphysics, and hence yields far wider agreement. This was mistakenly taken to mean that physics is objective while metaphysics is subjective. The result was the rise of scientism and positivism philosophies that accord naturalistic science a monopoly on knowledge and consign all else to mere private belief and fantasy.
Today, Johnson writes, the dominance of the scientific naturalist definition of knowledge eventually ensures that no independent source of knowledge will be recognized.
Darwin, Buddha, Jesus, Fairies
Yet, depending on how scientists judge the publics mood, they are more or less blunt about this epistemological imperialism. When feeling secure in their role as the cultural priesthood, they insist that naturalistic science has completely discredited the claims of religion. Tufts philosopher Daniel Dennett, in Darwins Dangerous Idea, says Darwinian evolution is a universal acid that dissolves all traditional religious and moral beliefs. He suggests that traditional churches be relegated to cultural zoos for the amusement of onlookers.
I witnessed the same attitude at a conference last April at Baylor University: Nobel prize-winner Steven Weinberg lumped together all spiritual teachings, whether of Buddha or Jesus, as talk about fairies. A few months earlier he had told the Freedom From Religion Association, I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and Im all for that. If science helps bring about the end of religion, he concluded, it would be the most important contribution science could make.
Using a sports metaphor, Johnson calls these outspoken scientists the offensive platoon, brought out as needed to invok[e] the authority of science to silence any theistic protest. At other times, however, when the public shows signs of restlessness at this imposition of naturalistic philosophy under the guise of science, the defensive platoon takes the field. That is when we read spin-doctored reassurances that many scientists are religious (in some sense) . . . and that science and religion are separate realms which should never be mixed.
But separate-but-equal in principle invariably means unequal in practice. For example, a report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) says, whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral. But a survey of NAS members by Larry Witham and Edward Larson in Scientific American found that 90% of scientists dont believe in a supernatural God. Witham and Larson conclude: The irony is remarkable: a group of specialists who are nearly all unbelievers and who believe that science compels such a conclusion told the public that science is neutral on the God question.
Or perhaps worse than an irony, Johnson comments; it may be a noble lie that the intellectual priesthood tells to the common people to conceal their own nihilism.
Keep the Public In the Dark
Similarly, Harvards Stephen J. Gould proposes a peacemaking formula he calls NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), granting science and religion each its own distinct authority. This sounds fair enough but it all depends on where one draws the line. Consider Goulds assessment of the 1996 statement by John Paul II, in which the pope tentatively supported evolution while emphatically rejecting any theories that consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter.
How did Gould treat this affirmation of the reality of the spiritual realm? He condescendingly granted that such a quaint notion might have some metaphorical value, but added that he privately suspected it to be no more than a sop to our fears, a device for maintaining a belief in human superiority within an evolutionary world offering no privileged position to any creature.
In other words, Gould reduced religion to mere emotion at best at worst, to the sin of speciesism. This was a bit much even for John Haught of Georgetown University, himself an ardent evolutionist: He complained that Gould never concedes the slightest cognitive status to religion that for Gould religion merely paints a coat of value over the otherwise valueless facts described by science.
Precisely. For the modern Darwinist, Johnson explains, the only role left for the theologian is to put a theistic spin on the story provided by materialism. Theology does not provide an independent source of knowledge; all it can do is borrow knowledge to put a subjective interpretation on it.
Clearly, the function of the defensive platoon is merely to keep religious folk content with their subordinate status. Darwinists understand that it is sometimes more effective not to press the logic of the fact/value split to its unpalatable conclusions too adamantly, lest the public catch on and raise a protest. Instead of arguing that religion is false, by relegating it to the value realm, they keep the question of true and false off the table altogether. As Johnson says, religion is consigned to the private sphere, where illusory beliefs are acceptable if they work for you.
Thus the fact/value split allows the metaphysical naturalists to mollify the potentially troublesome religious people by assuring them that science does not rule out religious belief (so long as it does not pretend to be knowledge).
Once this division is accepted in principle however, Johnson warns, the philosophical naturalists have won. Whenever the separate realms logic surfaces, you can be sure that the wording implies that there is a ruling realm (founded on reality) and a subordinate realm (founded on illusions which must be retained for the time being). Hence, the formula allows the ruling realm to expand its territory at will.
The expansion of the fact realm into theology can be traced in the work of scientists such as Harvards E.O. Wilson, who seeks to explain religion itself as a product of evolution. Religion is merely an idea that appears in the human mind when the nervous system has evolved to a certain level of complexity.
In Consilience, Wilson says religion evolved because belief in God gave early humans an edge in the struggle for survival. Today, he says, we must abandon traditional religions and develop a new unifying myth based squarely on evolution a religion that deifies the process itself, where no teaching, no doctrine, is true in any final sense because all ideas evolve over time.
A similar expansion can be traced in ethics, where sociobiology and evolutionary psychology now presume to answer moral questions. In the notorious New York Times article mentioned above, Pinker argues that since infanticide is widespread in human cultures, it must be a product of evolution. As he puts it, the emotional circuitry of mothers has evolved to include a capacity for neonaticide. It is simply part of our biological design.
Accept this logic, Johnson warns, and you will be pressed to the conclusion that killing off babies is not a moral horror but a morally neutral act, a genetically encoded evolutionary adaptation, like wings or claws.
Pinker does not draw this conclusion yet. But when the time seems ripe to overthrow the traditional moral view, Johnson predicts, doctrinaire naturalists will complete the logic by observing that the moral sphere is as empty as the religious realm, and therefore has no power to stand against the conclusions of science.
Shortly after Johnson finished his book, his forewarnings were confirmed by the appearance of a book titled The Natural History of Rape, which argued that, biologically speaking, rape is not a pathology; instead, it is an evolutionary strategy for maximizing reproductive success: In other words, if candy and flowers dont do the trick, some men may resort to coercion to fulfill the reproductive imperative. The book calls rape a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage, akin to the leopards spots and the giraffes elongated neck.
The book roused sharp controversy, but as one of the authors, Randy Thornhill, said on National Public Radio, the logic is inescapable: Since evolution is true, it must be true, he said, that every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. Thats not a debatable matter. Every behavior that exists today must confer some evolutionary advantage; otherwise, it would not have been preserved by natural selection.
The fact realm has even expanded into the philosophy of mind, where consistent Darwinists tell us there is no single, central self, residing somehow within the body, that makes decisions, holds opinions, loves and hates. Instead, in the currently popular computational theory, the mind is a set of computers that solve specific problems forwarded by the senses. The notion of a unified self is an illusion, Pinker says an illusion selected by evolution only because our body needs to be able to go one direction at a time.
Of course, computers operate without consciousness, so the question arises why we are conscious beings. Some neuroscientists conclude that we arent that consciousness too is an illusion. Philosopher Paul Churchland says mental states do not exist, and suggests that we replace language about beliefs and desires with statements about the nervous systems physical mechanisms the activation of neurons and so on.
Piling example upon example, Johnson illustrates the epistemological imperialism of the fact sphere. This explains why moral and religious conservatives seem to have little effect in the public square: Their message is filtered through a fact/value grid that reduces it to an expression of mere emotional attachment and tribal prejudice. To turn the tide of the culture war, conservatives must challenge this definition of knowledge, and make the case that religion and morality are genuine sources of knowledge. We must assert the existence of such a cognitive territory, Johnson writes, and be prepared to defend it. [Emphasis added.]
Of course, others have offered philosophical arguments to undercut the fact/value dichotomy, notably Michael Polanyi and Leo Strauss. What makes Johnsons approach unique is that he takes the battle into science itself. He proposes that Darwinian evolution itself can and should be critiqued, since it functions as the crucial scientific support for philosophical naturalism. For if nature alone can produce everything that exists, then we must accept the reductionist conclusions described above. If, to take the last example, the mind is a product of material processes at its origin, then we must concede that it consists of nothing more than material processes that our thoughts are reducible to the firing of neurons.
How Information Changes Everything
In science itself, the cutting-edge issue is information, Johnson says. Any text, whether a book or the DNA code, requires a complex, nonrepeating arrangement of letters. Can this kind of order be produced by chance or law? The answer, he argues, is no. Chance produces randomness, while physical law produces simple, repetitive order (like using a macro on your computer to print a phrase over and over). The only cause of complex, nonrepeating, specified order is an intelligent agent. [Emphasis added.]
Ordinary laboratory research implicitly assumes the reality of intelligent design, Johnson notes. Biologists talk of molecular machines and evaluate their engineering design. They conduct experiments that are described as reverse engineering to determine what functions biological structures perform. They talk about libraries of genetic information stored in DNA, and about how RNA translates the four-letter language of the nucleotides into the 20-letter language of proteins.
All this implies that information is real and information in turn implies the existence of a mind, a personal agent, capable of intention and choice. Thus purposes and ends [e.g., formal and final causes, to use the Aristotelian language] are real and objective, and the value realm is restored to the status of genuine knowledge.
Johnson only hints at what this would imply for a revival of traditional theology and ethics. But he suggests that it would begin with the many-layered verse in John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, the Logos reason, intelligence, information. These simple words make a fundamental statement that is directly contradictory to the corresponding starting point of scientific materialism, Johnson writes, and they open the door to a much richer definition of knowledge and of reason itself.
This conclusion is certainly suggestive, though not well developed. Johnsons greatest accomplishment is to give a deft analysis of the imperialism of the fact sphere. Unfortunately, he barely touches on the opposite dynamic the incursion of the value sphere into the fact realm which is well advanced in many fields. It is called postmodernism, and it reduces all knowledge claims to social constructions at best, to power plays at worst. Johnson devotes a chapter to the impact of postmodernism on the humanities, but it is the thinnest chapter in the book, and it is clear that his greatest concern is with the scientific fields where the older Enlightenment rationalism still reigns.
For the rationalist, Johnson is no doubt correct that the only approach that carries weight is a scientific one. Only a demonstration that the scientific data itself has theistic implications bridges the sphere of objective, public, verifiable knowledge. Johnson includes clear and readable discussions of standard anti-Darwinian arguments. (There has long been skepticism within the scientific community about the enormous extrapolation from minor variations within living things to explain the origin of living things.) He also gives a deliciously witty account of the Kansas controversy.
The strength of the book, however, is to show the wide-ranging implications of intelligent design theory in other fields, and to trace its relevance for nonscientists indeed, for all who are concerned about preserving a free and humane society.
Copyright 2000. Human Events. All rights reserved. International copyright secured. File Date: 10.23.00
* * * * * * *
This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use. A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be appreciated.
[URL -- http://www.arn.org/ with gratitude.]
Though I do not speak in any official capacity for FR, as a member of this forum for nearly nine years, I have to say FR isnt anti-science at all; its anti abuse of science that is, to say, any use of science dedicated to political and social change purposes. The scientific method itself allows no scope for such proclivities/activities.
Personally, I strongly object to this "disenchanted evo" mischaracterization. And Nancy Pearceys article well documents the reasons why in logic and reason I feel justified in objecting to the baseless claim that FR is "anti-science."
In the end, science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical. When it starts treading on metaphysical territory, it is illegitimately going beyond the scope of its mission, and trespassing on territory that its method is not designed to engage. That is to say, trespassing on philosophy and theology: It simply has no warrant there. And perhaps the time has come when certain scientists need to be reminded of that.
FYI and welcome to the party, should you choose to show up.
FYI - will read it later tonight. Looks interesting.
FYI, just in case you might find this interesting....
I think you have to distinguish between real science, and scientism.
Darwinism is a parody of science, which tends to be a kind of secular religion.
Science is a good deal more open minded and willing to adjust to the realities if a hypothesis proves to be wrong. Darwinists simply cannot get themselves to agree that they possibly could be wrong. Their position is that Darwinism is true, scientific, factual, period, end of conversation. If you disagree, they will call in the activist judges to shut your mouth, because you are deemed unscientific and therefore not worthy to be heard.
I was a math and physics major at Harvard before I changed fields, and I have studied the history of science and philosophy for most of my lifetime. Descartes's mind-body problem is certainly one source of the difficulty. But it goes back even further to John of Ockham's nominalism. This is the illusion that if you can't see and touch something, it's not real. Therefore there is no such thing as a tree, or a maple, or an oak. There are only individual trees, maples, and oaks. The individual is more real than the universal. But paradoxically we can only think in universals.
That soon leads to theories like those mentioned: that we have no free will, no real consciousness, no real intelligence, that all our ideals are really illusions, and so forth. But as Samuel Johnson said, while kicking a stone, "Thus do I refute Berkeley." Anyone with even a dash of sense knows that he has free will, intelligence, choice. It takes a brainwashing education to make people think otherwise, and of course that's why Darwinists want to impose brainwashing educations in the public schools, with no opportunity to discuss whether they are actually real or scientific.
History tells the same story. Science and technology grew up in the west to unprecedented heights BECAUSE of Christianity, not in spite of it, as the pseudoscientists would have people believe. Philosophy, or the love of knowledge, thrived under Christianity long after it died in Greece, and philosophy died in the West precisely because Christianity weakened in intellectual circles.
Such materialistc determinism is the cornerstone of Marxism.
From my point of view, there is exactly not a single word you wrote that I can disagree with.
Certainly I appreciate the distinction you make between science and scientism -- the latter a bastardized, reduced version of human reason and insight.
Thank you ever so much for your illuminating essay/post!
You're welcome, RunningWolf! Hope to see you again later.
As always, Cicero, your wise comments are worth re-reading. My grandmother always said our troubles started at the turn of the 20th century when so many intellectuals (so-called) rejected God.
Personally, I think of the afterlife as analogous to the profit motive - - most humans are pretty selfish and the only reason they behave themselves is because they expect to have to answer for it eventually.
So very glad you noticed that, too, Tailgunner Joe.
Of course, an allegation like that seems to make many of our neo-Darwinist friends squirm.... But it seems to me, if "the shoe fits, wear it."
Thanks for so much for writing, Tailgunner Joe!
Cicero is right. The "isms" try to simplify our world by amputating what doesn't fit, all for the sake of power.
Science by it's very nature is amoral.
In science anything that is possible is permissible.
Science not tempered by morality is a very dangerous place..
Who said, "Without God, everything is permissible."
Free Republic in my experience is an expedition of herding cats.. Mothers and even Mothers Apple Pie could be debated from many different angles.. To say there is an anti science animus on FR could easily be true... and also UNtrue at the same time.. Depends on which thread you are reading at the time and the time you are reading it..
Its that way with "Cats"... Freepers are just "scratching" for some truth.. and howling for "red meat".. What amazes me is that a conversation about "the Observer".. goes wanting.. Many think their observation post is the best.. and compared to others it might be, but to yet others it could "suck"(the observation post)... Cats are not very humble creatures..
Nevertheless, I like Cats...
What we have is a reference to a claim that quantum mechanics doesn't happen.
...as opposed to all those immoral conservatives...
I don't know the author but he was correct.
The marxist left has always falsely claimed that their anti-religious viewpoint is rooted in "science." Their "scientists" push marxist "global warming" doomsday hysteria and other nonsense and are supposed to be just as unquestionable as Michael J. Fox's support for "scientific" experimentation on human beings.
"Without God, everything is permitted." -- Dostoevsky
I'm going to like this article, thanks for posting it.
I suppose you could see it that way. I myself am put off with this altar status of amorality and content neutrality bit floating around nowadays. They push it in the courts, you know. I don't trust it, no, not at all.
To put it straight, there is no science without thought. We do science. We think it. No thought, no science. Remember your old Latin, scientia. It means knowledge. In a real way, science is the scientia of the human person. And isn't the human person a moral being? When knowledge is thought to be amoral, I think there is a serious misunderstanding. It begins to bifurcate or life, to split it. And then we become alienated from the world we know we loved.
This problem is related to the fact-value distinction that is raised in the article (not to mention the fact-value-truth distinction).
So what do you mean then, by saying it is amoral? It sounds as if science is a Mr. or Mrs. who is exempt.
The three great nineteenth century exponents of what was to become the Hermeneutics of Suspicion were Darwin, Marx, and Freud.
All of them had some interesting things to say, even Marx. But they all thought that everything could be explained by their "scientific" systems, and they were wrong about that.
Marx has been discredited among sensible people, but he is still immensely influential in academia. Freud also has been generally discredited. Darwin is still holding on by his fingernails, largely with the strategic help of activist judges, who remember the famous Scopes trial and think they are manning the barriers against ignorance and superstition.
Not very democratic. Darwinists have a natural tendency to believe that they belong to a superior race of beings, higher up the evolutionary scale than the rest of us. Freudians, too. Anyone who questioned their theories was "hostile." Therefore, like good Marxists or Freudians, Darwinists think it's their job to tell the rest of us how to think, and more especially how to brainwash our children.
Yes, you are right. "Science" means knowledge, and only took on a more particular meaning, previously denoted by the term "natural philosophy," in the late Renaissance.
Pope Benedict has been pointing out the dangers of splitting rational thought from religion. Ultimately, it is theology and philosophy that lay the groundwork for science, and when scientists casually dismiss this ancient, hard-won knowledge, they are cutting away the very foundations of their work.
"Amoral" in this sense refers to value-free situations, making it a synonym of "nonmoral" (neither moral nor immoral).
For example, physics would be an amoral discipline, neither moral nor immoral in itself. However, isn't there an ethical code attached to the practice of each discipline? And when this ethical code is breached, isn't the science therein in danger of becoming "perverted" science?
Nevertheless, philosophy should encompass science and religion, both at the same time. This can be done, or a move can be made in that direction if we realize that philosophy itself has been a process in evolution. There is a Cartesian dualism of some kind, at least that of subjective and objective, or private and public. Science deals with public matters and religion with private to some degree. A cause is something that if present will have the same result every time--the basis of science. Morality is the power to choose, and ethics has come to mean making legal choices where the law itself is bifurcating partially from logic as the ethics of the community mature. These distinctions were not always present but are being evolved morally--by us.
Yes, Cicero is right. Absolutely right. And for the exact reasons you cite.
May God ever help his struggling children.
Thank you ever so much for your reply, dear cornelis!
I agree. It is a way of thinking that dictates what science is.
This means that even though a particular science restricts itself to particular objects (as betty boop says, "science must confine itself to the elucidation of the physical"), scientific thinking is not neutral with respect to the very position it takes to dictate its method and object.
So my dearest friend hosepipe, when did you decide to be given over to the proposition of "moral equivalency" in arguments that purport to deal with essential Truth?
Honestly, dear friend, you have perplexed me greatly in recent times.... I just don't know where you're coming from. Please clear up this mystery?
Nice to see you on 'my' side of this issue Betty..
Our Constitution is based on an unscientific philosophy of human ideas & principles, -- principles that most of us can agree are 'natural laws'.
At one point Nancy noted:
" --- The expansion of the "fact" realm into theology can be traced in the work of scientists such as Harvard's E.O. Wilson, who seeks to explain religion itself as a product of evolution.
Religion is merely an idea that appears in the human mind when the nervous system has evolved to a certain level of complexity.
In Consilience, Wilson says religion evolved because belief in God gave early humans an edge in the struggle for survival. --"
I have no doubt that Wilson is right about the fact that about our beliefs in a 'Golden Rule' gave us an "edge in survival" ..
-- But to claim that these beliefs are "merely an idea" is belied by his own reasoning. -- Political freedom is a necessary precursor to scientific freedom - to my way of thinking.
Without the golden rules of religions, our freedom to pursue science could never have grown past those of pagan Greek & Rome.
And so your point, gcruse, would be...????
Some of us are wisening up here. The facts are a liars best defense. Not to get up in a snit, but why point out the amorality of science? Is it an excuse? To me it sounds like license.
Another great read, Cicero. Right on the money. Please keep up your good work.
Thank you so very much for the cites, megatherium! You have my undying gratitude.
It would be better, thinking of contemporary usage, to say non-moral rather than amoral in this case. Amoral has other baggage, while non-moral is baggage-free.
Amen to that, dear tpaine! Though Greece and Rome did provide important initial foundation for the quest that was to follow....
It's so good to see you again!!! It's been a long time, too long....
Maybe TasmanianRed was merely showing us how easy it is for scientists to put their individual philosophy into their work.
The universe is not "pointless" (Steven Weinberg), Earth is not merely "a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark," (Carl Sagan) and human existence isn't "just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents" (Steven Weinberg).
On the contrary, the evidence we can uncover from our Earthly home points to a universe that is designed for life, and designed for scientific discovery.
It's become ~very~ hard [& dangerous] to discuss the philosophy of constitutionalism in some of the forums..
We'll see if it's safe here. -- Thanks for the thread.
It is written
Pr 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
You think that's hard? Try discussing acutal science that the fundies don't like. You would think that witch burning is back in vouge.
From your statement I gather that you are resorting to polemics, and not to rational debate.
You think that's hard? Try discussing actual science that the fundies don't like. You would think that witch burning is back in vogue.
I hear you.. I try to stick to 'political science', but the majority rule crowd always manages to divert discussion to 'moral majority' questions. -- Fancy that.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean, tpaine.
Still, the constitutionalists have to step up to the plate, or else the concept of human liberty will be lost for lack of an adequate, that is reasonable defense against the ideologists who attack the very foundations of a free republic.
And so, from my heart I thank you tpaine for stepping up to the plate....
All I would wish to add is this: friends of liberty -- pass the ammunition, keep your powder dry, and do not fire until you see "the whites of their eyes."
Thanks for writing, tpaine. I really am delighted to see you again.
Delighted to see you too kiddo.. -- Now if we can just keep Voegelin out of the discussion maybe I can keep up ---
We only burn the bad spellers.