My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.
— J.B.S. Haldane, “Fact and Faith” (1934)

"Last week, I [Lawrence M. Krauss] had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled “Science, Faith and Religion.” I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?

I ended up being one of two panelists labeled “atheists.” The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno." [Science and God Don't Mix]

Krauss has some experience in defending science, especially biology, in the face of religious fundamentalists who see science as an atheist Trojan horse that will destroy their children's faith. He accepts Haldane's view that for science to work it must do so in an atheistic mode, in the sense that supernatural beings are left out of current theories. However, the two catholic panellists prove that it is possible to have faith and reason at the same time. But what was also striking was that neither Catholic was able to rationally defend the virgin birth apart from on metaphorical or symbolic grounds. This shows to me that to restate the science versus religion argument as one of reason versus faith is overly simplistic; it becomes somewhat of a caricature of the head versus the heart. Yet this latter play of opposites is possibly close to the truth.

The problem is not that a believer cannot be a scientist - after all, much of the history of science is filled with devoutly religious individuals - but rather that the rational part of the mind does not turn its scalpel towards the fideist part of the same mind. In this sense, I think it useful to categorize faith as an emotional state, very much like being in love. Humans enjoy (or are possessed by) numerous emotional states, some of which are short term whereas others are so long term as to appear to be inextricably part of that person. It is also not possible to be entirely rational whilst in a rage or overcome with fear. Love is also far from rational. It is impossible to argue with someone that the love they feel for their partner is somehow not real, an illusion. Cataloguing a list of flaws is also unlikely to diminish their love. As for human love, so for supernatural love.

Although the emotional state of faith, as of love, can switch on and off, the balance between a fideist state and rationalism seems more a continuum with some tipping point. The rationalism of the two Catholic speakers shows how far that balance can be stretched so that faith can be maintained whilst, in their minds, keeping some semblance of intellectual honesty. Yet again, this shows to me that we are dealing with two very different functions of our mind that, however, obviously interact. Changing one's basic state of mind is a major event for an individual. Testimonies from people who have flipped from being faithful to atheist or vice versa show how closely it resembles falling in and out of love. But it often takes a major crisis to precipitate this mental tectonic shift.

Krauss ends his article with,"So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God, and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature." I still think that arguments for and against a metaphysical being are largely pointless. It is like trying to use the knife of reason to do an autopsy on a ghost. It is true that rationality does not require an atheist stance, but for the sake of truth it is worth using both science and rationality on this state of being we call faith. Treating faith as an emotional state also removes any truth about the propositions supported by being in such a state. It may also serve as the key to unlock those minds who are having real turmoil in somehow keeping their childhood faith whilst trying to reconcile it with either science or just life in general. People fall in and out of love all the time without being branded as 'loveless'. It is therefore possible to fall in and out of faith - just don't claim that it says anything about the universe apart from describing your state of mind.

From my Asylum Joy blog

Views: 9

Tags: and, fideism, god, rational, rationalism, religion, science

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Richard Mankiewicz on August 6, 2009 at 4:41am
If you're already reading buddhist philosophy then I'd stick with that and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Unlike Christian theology that is often a long apologetic about unfounded beliefs, Buddhist philosophy is largely about mind and knowledge and leads to practices that can confirm what may otherwise appear esoteric states of mind. For me, it is ultimately about how much can humans experience.

For example, somebody experiences a visitation from an angel. The christian will claim this as proof that angels, and hence God, exist. The buddhist will claim this is a manifestation of your own mind and that believing it to have an independent existence is a delusion. The latter will show you that you can repeat the experience, and go beyond it, the former will tell you it's a miracle. Which one is true?
Comment by JayBarti on August 2, 2009 at 3:49pm
So for me, what would count as progress is turning speculative philosophy into natural philosophy.

I keep feeling like I am missing a part of the picture because I know almost nothing of philosophy except as a "so I read this" kinda way. Buddhist ideas and dialog is the closest I ever came to anything even reassembling the idea of that kind of discussion.

A lot of Christians' and others who attempt to explain their belief outside a personal level, seem to dive into those heady waters. It seems to me to be an attempt to re-define the argument itself, but I don't quite understand it but I can't say I have looked into it either.
Comment by Richard Mankiewicz on August 1, 2009 at 8:55pm
Hi JayBarti, I agree that the comment threads are sometimes more interesting than the articles, but what often happens is that the points of the article often get left behind and the comments reiterate some fairly standard arguments. Perhaps I was just expressing my own jaundiced views that such arguments have not progressed much. They are worth knowing for their own sake and so as not to get stuck in any untenable positions, but, perhaps like yourself, I'm more interested in what makes the fideist mindset so different to the non-believer. That rarely gets discussed as there is also no funding for such experiments - I'd be very cautious as to the stuff funded by the Templeton foundation as they are unashamedly Christian. So for me, what would count as progress is turning speculative philosophy into natural philosophy.
Comment by JayBarti on August 1, 2009 at 1:00pm
It is a neat take on the why of science vs the why of religion.

Anyway, I couldn't see any stunningly original comments on the thread.

For someone well versed in the subject I am sure thats more then true, or has been reading these kind of things for sometime. I am still trying to understand the religious state of mind, and very much like to read the discussions (if there are any that is). Articles like that in prominent papers bring out both sides very fast.
Comment by Richard Mankiewicz on July 31, 2009 at 11:51pm
Yeah, thanks for the link back to the WSJ article - I have a crap third world internet and WSJ not only takes ages to load but then you have to pay for most articles. Anyway, I couldn't see any stunningly original comments on the thread; just the usual stuff, god of the gaps, how versus why, the problem of suffering etc etc. One interesting this is the sub-title inserted by the editors, "A scientist can be a believer. But professionally, at least, he can't act like one." which doesn't quite describe the author's arguments.

But all those words boil down to a fundamental difference in psychology - the believer takes articles of faith as facts, the scientist takes them as hypotheses. Somewhat bizarrely the believer also takes scientific facts as hypotheses, unable to distinguish between accepted theories and tentative speculations.

So I think that if science is to truly investigate the human capacity to believe in a religion (or not) then it must do so experimentally. It is ultimately a branch of psychology and neuroscience. So my aim is to try and recast many old questions in such a way as to be experimentally investigated. Some can also be personally investigated, as witnessed by Chris's comment above. I think it really important people at least try to understand what is going on inside themselves. Sometimes we have scientific knowledge to help us, at other times we have to rely on self knowledge.
Comment by JayBarti on July 31, 2009 at 6:10pm
It interesting to run through the comments on the WSJ where the original piece was published.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service