Is science in danger of becoming its own religion? That’s what Karl Giberson is worried about. In a recent essay in Salon, he questions whether hardcore atheists such as P.Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota at Morris and author of the popular pro-atheism (or rather, anti-religion) blog Pharyngula, are replacing religious fundamentalism with a new kind of absolutism: The belief that science (as opposed to God) holds the answer to every question in the universe, and religion is nothing more than a scam. Questioning Myers’ ongoing statements such as “we find truth only in science,” Giberson writes:
As a fellow scientist (I have a Ph.D. in physics), I share Myers’ enthusiasm for fresh eyes, questioning minds and the power of science. And I worry about dogmatism and the kind of zealotry that motivates the faithful to blow themselves up, shoot abortion doctors and persecute homosexuals. But I also worry about narrow exclusiveness that champions the scientific way of knowing to the exclusion of all else. I don’t like to see science turned into a club to bash religious believers.
Granted, there’s a back story to his argument: Giberson, the founding editor of the erstwhile Science & Theology News and the author of Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, became the object of Myers’ criticism after a previous Salon Q&A regarding Giberson’s new book. In a somewhat self-righteous move, Giberson responded with the current essay suggesting that Myers had wrongfully targeted him, and that his dismissals of the theologian’s arguments were themselves a form of dogma.
No surprise, Myers then fired back on his blog, charging Giberson with taking details out of context and countering Giberson’s charge of zealotry with a stock defense: that Myers’ absolute belief in science can’t possibly be replacing God because there is no God to replace.
Ultimately, their circuitous arguments are akin to two men speaking different languages: Myers simply can’t/won’t speak Religion, while Giberson has appointed himself translator of a fundamentally irrational concept—that intangibles like God and faith do and should exist—to a hardcore rationalist audience. Neither is objectively right, and both are interpreting facts and creating “reality” to fit their own agendas.
While Giberson has a point—rebutting religious absolutism with scientific absolutism is a recipe for hypocrisy—his arguments include a bag of rhetorical tricks, including using a few flimsy criteria to categorize science as a “religion,” and crafting himself as the white knight of theology in the face of a modernist/secular regime that seeks to stamp out man’s faith in God. As the current administration’s policies, not to mention the political climate, demonstrates, it’s hardly the atheists who hold the upper hand.
Meanwhile, Myers won’t acknowledge that belief in God can exist within an “intelligent” person—an attitude that doesn’t resonate with the majority of the planet’s six billion people. Which isn’t to say it’s wrong, but the refusal to acknowledge that others both think/feel differently, and may be justified in doing so, draws obvious comparisons to religious zealotry.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I think that too much fear has been ingrained into the human species to readily relinquish the outdated idea of god(s). This is HOW we have a lot of intelligent folks who still feel a need to believe.
I do find it depressing to see how readily people eat up the empty bag of rhetorical tricks though. It’s a long fight we have for a rational/thinking revolution to happen. I do wonder, what sort of an “event” would have to happen in human history for people to “en mass” start shedding irrational beliefs in the supernatural? That would probably be an interesting blog subject.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Funny how Melissa Lafsky includes an extended quote by Giberson, but none by Myers. Perhaps it’s because she wants to appear “even-handed” in criticizing these opponents.
But the obvious extended quote from Myers that she should have included shows that Myers defends himself far more rigorously and effectively than Lafsky implies:
“Right there in the critical post I wrote, I said plainly, ‘Gould and Dawkins do not claim that evolution as a religion, or that it should be treated as one, and neither do I; that would be ridiculous, since if I were equating the two, that would mean I think people ought to grow out of their absurd faith in evolution.’ In the desecration post, I plainly said that nothing should be sacred. Giberson read those, apparently, and then decided that I really meant the opposite.”
August 4th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I wouldn’t attribute any forethought of malice to Ms Lafsky on her selection of quotes. I read the original stories from both authors, and I do have to say that Giberson gets his butt handed to him. The whole “science is also a religion” argument is old, tired, and downright a farce at this point. Myers does a much better job than any of us did so far.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Larian:
“I think that too much fear has been ingrained into the human species to readily relinquish the outdated idea of god(s). This is HOW we have a lot of intelligent folks who still feel a need to believe.”
While I do find that for many people fear can be a motivator for religion, I hope that your outlook is a bit more rigorous than just blaming fear for the rise of spirituality [if in fact thats what you meant]. I find that religion is much a part of the human person as culture, and that by denying ourselves any ability to understand the world outside of the rational venue is to not be completely human at all.
Furthermore, while I do understand the atheist’s contempt for dogmatic [esp. heirarchal] religions (and actually share some of them as well), I believe that scientists especially should have more of an open mind towards the spiritual aspects of the human life.
By trying to percieve the world through the lense of a wholly objective observer we might just miss out on our own perception of life.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
hmm…as indigenous to the Americas, born and raised traditionally, and formally educated by the Western process of education in science (astrophysics), if it is being said “religion” is static or if “science” is static, then therefore they are similar, I would agree. However, if we can say both are in flux some of the time (if not in “interdimensional hyper-flux”), it is also true there exists the possibility at some point they converge. Can we say science is the toolbox of “god?” If we can safely go there, then all that needs to be confronted is the word “god or God.” Perhaps, “god” or “God” is the ultimate highest type of science we can know (though we do not “know” yet what that science might propose). There is some legitimacy in both “religion” and “science” that lends itself to the idea of a (”higher”) consciousness in the sub-sub realms of all matter. This consciousness speaks on the level of mass and force creating a charge or it speaks to us directly “behind the eyes.” And, with as much vigor, we can say whatever it is we believe is true. Subjects such as these cannot be known with certainty howevermuch we would like to have the same. We can only know what we can know in the “now” of this space and time and there is sufficient data to support all ideas, whether it be in science or religion. The type of physics I studied forty years ago is very different than the science now being taught. And, also just as true is that “religion” now interprets itself more humanely and universally. Personally, I find no need to judge either science or religion as dogmatic….perhaps I just prefer to translate loosely what is said…tomorrow I will hear something else and all the while “see” we are drawing closer to a more common “understanding”…at least that is my belief and as I said, what one believes is true (until they “know” something else or noetically receive an “upgrade.”)
August 5th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Personally, between bigotry, fundementalism, dogmatism in science and bigotry, fundementalism, dogmatism in religion I would choose science every time. At least scientific bigotry can be slapped down with evidence (or lack of it) by equally competent exponents. What’s more is that it can be challenged through a particular process without fear of eternal hell or damnation.
Not so with religion. Exponents range from lords to the starvingd, each and all between with their own take on the meaning of life, each and all claiming a special relationship with the super-powerful that is ready to support (or punish) them. “Challenge this being’s princples at your peril” they say fearfully. But of course we know that is religous-speak for “don’t challenge my ideas”.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
It is funny how the more we think we are smarter the dumber we get. The world today tries to say that there is no God, because you can’t see or prove it, but can you prove that he’s not there. The scientific bigotry of today can’t see past their own faces. The so called theory of evolution that is crammed down the throats of our children is so wrong, I know that there will be a lot of negative posts on this remark but so be it, this and other ideas are what wrong with our sociality today. The scientific community rhetoric of “THERE IS NO GOD” is getting a little tiring. And, with as much vigor as I can muster, you can say whatever it is you believe is true it not. But that will be your problem.
August 13th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
religion promotes long term stagnation, and science sucks the life out of directly experiencing the world as it is now. point is we are already in eternity. everything i have ever experienced implies that everything keeps going beyond the horizon, no matter what kind of binoculars you got. the rationalist is inside and a part of this reality. and the longer he looks objectively, the less he will observe for himself. wisdom and growth come from direct experience and careful, self communing reflection. God is what we all want to get, no matter how you put it. God is satisfaction. and nature has deputized the human race to catalyze this process to be expressly expressed.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:51 am
John, yest, that’s just a SMALL facet.
I was trying to be a bit witty. As for spirituality, I don’t generally care one way or another until it starts to impede on the scientific process (which it seems to do all to often).
If you want to be unromantic and totally scientific, most spiritual experiences are explainable and even reproducible in the laboratory. Further pokes holes in a lot of the more primitive explanations that humans have come up with.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am
In the past 100 years how many scientific findings have been overturned? I realize that every scientist at the time is doing their absolute best to find the truth but it is just that, their best. Humanity is flawed by nature. We are doing amazing things by engineering technology that will ensure our human flaws don’t make their way into our research but we are still flawed. And just as Darwin said survival is the #1 concern of all species and we are all competitive by nature. (some more than others) The scientific community is just as competitive as the business world. Every lab and every group are trying desperately to learn new things about our world. Partially because of the quest for knowledge but also because if they don’t they will lose their funding because there is a line miles long behind them of other groups wanting funding. If a priest who spends all his life learning about love, honesty and morality can decide to turn completely on it for his own selfish reasons what is to stop a scientist who is so close to a monumental finding for humanity to just take it that extra inch further than it really is. Just look at what’s going between the global warming and global cooling groups. 2 completely separate theories, which have nothing to do with each other, and that don’t disprove that each other is possible. but our human competitive nature is coming out as they try to find holes in each other in the hopes that they will lose popularity and their funding. This area is quite possibly the most important scientific research that could be going on right now because it concerns the life of all humanity. But instead of working together and with the government to really know for sure what is going on they squabble over who is more full of crap.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
I would suggest that the world can have BOTH a spiritual path as well as a scientific one. What many scientists rail against, and rightly so, it the incredible narrow-mindedness of the religious right… People like Myers over-react and then you do begin to see a “scientific” intolerance for ALL things spiritual. We see this too with the high priests of the Politically Correct. They scream bloody murder at the religious right and its insufferably self-righteous attitude WHILE being the exact same way - telling all of us what is and is NOT acceptable from the tenants of PC…
I would recommend for those looking for balance to investigate the Baha’i Faith. One of its MAJOR tenants is this: that religion WITHOUT science is mere superstition and science without the spiritual influence of is mere materialism. NEITHER is a complete answer for all the questions of existence…
JMH
Portland, OR
August 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
[…] Secular Coalition lobbyist Lori Lipman Brown, Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer, and P.Z. Myers. At least the atheists know how to have a little […]
August 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
[…] Documentary “Science and religion need each other as guides in their search for truth”.Are Scientists the Next Religious Zealots? | Reality Base | Discover Magazine Tags > No Tags < This product is also listed in Society & Culture New Products […]
September 12th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Spirituality and science inherently contradict each other. Calling something “spiritual” means asserting that it can’t be explained by science. All that science is guilty of, is keeping on looking for explanations when spiritual people say “stop”.
Religion and science are even more at odds. While being spiritual merely means choosing to be satisfied with ignorance, being religious means joining a group of people united together to promote falsehoods, false ontologies, and false ways of finding truth. Religion operates in some areas that science doesn’t, but it is never content to stay within those areas. Truth eventually exposes all religions; so all religions eventually oppose truth.
If you say science is just another religion, but would rather go to a medical doctor than a faith healer, you are a hypocrite.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:36 am
[…] for the record, I’m not an atheist — I just wish the people who make a living preaching that God exists could do a little better […]