The American Museum of Natural History has just opened its new exhibit on human origins (see The New York Times). PZ Myers notes a paragraph in the article about balancing religion and science,One issue cannot be entirely sidestepped in any public presentation of human evolution: that many people in this country doubt and vocally oppose the very concept. In a corner of the hall, several scientists are shown in video interviews professing the compatibility of their evolution research with their religious beliefs.Fine, I understand why this might be considered necessary in a science museum but shouldn't the other side be presented as well? After all, most scientists are non-believers.
Why not have a video presentation of atheist scientists who point out the conflicts between science and religion? Why not present the reasons why evolutionary biology is incompatible with many religious beliefs?
I wonder which "scientists" are featured in the presentation? Do you suppose it's the usual suspects like Ken Miller and Francis Collins or are there some Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists as well?
7 comments :
Well, while you and I may take the view that science and religion have no compatibility, or that religion itself doesn't even need to exist, remember this exhibit is designed to win over the uneducated general public. The only thing they ever hear about evolution is that it's Teh Eebul from Satan whose godless atheist minions want to destroy Christianity. So the display of religious scientists simply explaining why that isn't true is just there to counter that pernicious piece of anti-science programming people get from their churches.
When you're dealing with people who have been taught to distrust science at all times because it makes the baby Jesus cry, you gotta take things slow. A display of atheist scientists aggressively flogging the idea that sure enough, science shows religion is bullshit, is like teaching someone to swim by flinging them into the Pacific Ocean. Too much, too soon, too harsh.
You win over minds by showing them that a new idea is better, not by telling them flat out their cherished beliefs held since childhood are idiocy. They'll just take that as a personal attack and shut themselves down to any new knowledge.
And no, I'm not a member of the Neville Chamberlain School, and have in fact been harsh critic of those who are.
Why not have a video presentation of atheist scientists who point out the conflicts between science and religion? Why not present the reasons why evolutionary biology is incompatible with many religious beliefs?
Fine, but why not in churches and mosques rather than in a science museum.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/godless.html
Victor Stenger, physicist and philosopher: 'God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.'
Stenger: "In this book, I ... argue that science makes a strong case against the existence of a God with the traditional attributes of the Judaic-Christian-Islamic God. ... Not only is there no evidence for God, I argue that the evidence we have can be used to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that this God does not exist. Not only does the universe show no evidence for God, it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God."
Larry, I am no scientist, but being a Hindu could answer a part of your question. The ancient traditions of India, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism are not religions in the Western sense. They do not have a doctrine, or prophets, (Buddha did not consider himself a founder in any sense of the term) or revelations. More importantly the three traditions have never maintained that 'religion' is about truth or truth claims. So for the Hindu scientist there can be no dividing line between science and tradition, as it is all an evolving quest. Placing these ideas on the spectrum of theism/agnosticism/atheism would be incorrect. Such a distinction is not relevant in any way to their way of thinking. Hindus of course vary very widely in belief and some may well believe the most outlandish things. But the incompatibility of science and religion is hardly a concern.
Shiva
Shiva. Thanks for writing. Curious to know, if Hindus see no conflict between science and religion in their belief systems, how one would differentiate a concept like Brahman (described in its Wikipedia entry as "eternal, genderless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and ultimately indescribable in human language") from Western concepts of deity, and why the one should be thought of as any less scientifically credible than the other. Sincere query, not a provocation. Cheers.
Martin,
Hindus shd not see a conflict between science and religion not because they (if I can club the opinions of millions of people into one featureless mass!) are more scientific! Brahman is not an entity or a person such as the God of the religions. Even the differention schools of thought (monists, dualists, and non-dualists) do not ascribe personhood to Brahman. If of course one does so the idea of Brahman is no more credible than any deific idea. It then descends into a "my God is greater than yours" silliness.
Martin,
I missed something in my last comment. Hindus shd not see any conflict, but of course they do in plenty. They shdn't for certain non-scientific reasons. The folklore and mythology of the Hindus unlike Christian/Islamic mythology does not reserve any special place for human beings and humans are not separate from other living beings. Human-animal hybrid characters, talking animals and even plants can be found. And then creation itself is a non-event. Time scales are vast and of course Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains believe that the Universe and Time are infinite with no beginning or end. The "Designer" of IDiocy to the Hindu sounds like a country fair conjurer. But again none of this need be scientifically derived. Since it overlaps with the results of science in some areas, Hindus may seem less interested in the IDiot's theories.
Post a Comment