Image:
More In This Article
For an extended version of this article, click here.
Editors’ Introduction
Although the authors are both on the side of science, they have not always agreed about the best ways to oppose religiously motivated threats to scientific practice or instruction. Krauss, a leading physicist, frequently steps into the public spotlight to argue in favor of retaining evolutionary theory in school science curricula and keeping pseudoscientific variants of creationism out of them. An open letter he sent to Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, urging the pontiff not to build new walls between science and faith, led the Vatican to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s acceptance of natural selection as a valid scientific theory.
Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, prolific author and lecturer, is also an eloquent critic of any attempt to undermine scientific reasoning. He has generally shown less interest than Krauss, however, in achieving a peaceful coexistence between science and faith. The title of Dawkins’s best-selling book The God Delusion perhaps best summarizes his opinion of religious belief.
These two allies compared notes from the front lines during breaks at a conference devoted to discussing clashes between science and religion held at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego late last year. In a dialogue they re-create here, the authors explained their respective tactics for engaging the enemy and tackled some of the questions that face all scientists when deciding whether and how to talk to the faithful about science: Is the goal to teach science or to discredit religion? Can the two worldviews ever enrich one another? Is religion inherently bad? In an extended version of their conversation available here, the authors also delve into whether science can ever test the “God Hypothesis.”
The Authors
Lawrence M. Krauss is Ambrose Swasey Professor and director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University. Author of seven popular books and dozens of commentaries for national publications, radio and television, he also lectures widely on science and public policy. Among his many scientific honors, he has the unique distinction of having received the highest awards from all three U.S. physics societies. In his spare time, he has performed The Planets with the Cleveland Orchestra, served as a Sundance Film Festival judge and written four articles for Scientific American.
Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. His nine books have earned him honorary doctorates in literature and science, and he is a Fellow of both the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Literature. His many prizes include the Cosmos International Prize, the Nakayama Prize for Human Science and the Shakespeare Prize for Distinguished Contributions to British Culture. In 2006 he created the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. New British school guidelines encourage students to play the roles of such figures as Galileo, Darwin and Dawkins while debating science and creationism.
Krauss: Both you and I have devoted a substantial fraction of our time to trying to get people excited about science, while also attempting to explain the bases of our current respective scientific understandings of the universe. So it seems appropriate to ask what the primary goals of a scientist should be when talking or writing about religion. I wonder which is more important: using the contrast between science and religion to teach about science or trying to put religion in its place? I suspect that I want to concentrate more on the first issue, and you want to concentrate more on the second.
I say this because if one is looking to teach people, then it seems clear to me that one needs to reach out to them, to understand where they are coming from, if one is going to seduce them into thinking about science. I often tell teachers, for example, that the biggest mistake any of them can make is to assume that their students are interested in what they are about to say. Teaching is seduction. Telling people, on the other hand, that their deepest beliefs are simply silly—even if they are—and that they should therefore listen to us to learn the truth ultimately defeats subsequent pedagogy. Having said that, if instead the primary purpose in discussing this subject is to put religion in its proper context, then perhaps it is useful to shock people into questioning their beliefs.
Dawkins: The fact that I think religion is bad science, whereas you think it is ancillary to science, is bound to bias us in at least slightly different directions. I agree with you that teaching is seduction, and it could well be bad strategy to alienate your audience before you even start. Maybe I could improve my seduction technique. But nobody admires a dishonest seducer, and I wonder how far you are prepared to go in “reaching out.” Presumably you wouldn’t reach out to a Flat Earther. Nor, perhaps, to a Young Earth Creationist who thinks the entire universe began after the Middle Stone Age. But perhaps you would reach out to an Old Earth Creationist who thinks God started the whole thing off and then intervened from time to time to help evolution over the difficult jumps. The difference between us is quantitative, only. You are prepared to reach out a little further than I am, but I suspect not all that much further.
Krauss: Let me make clearer what I mean by reaching out. I do not mean capitulating to misconceptions but rather finding a seductive way to demonstrate to people that these are indeed misconceptions. Let me give you one example. I have, on occasion, debated both creationists and alien abduction zealots. Both groups have similar misconceptions about the nature of explanation: they feel that unless you understand everything, you understand nothing. In debates, they pick some obscure claim, say, that in 1962 some set of people in Outer Mongolia all saw a flying saucer hovering above a church. Then they ask if I am familiar with this particular episode, and if I say no, they invariably say, “If you have not studied every such episode, then you cannot argue that alien abduction is unlikely to be happening.”
“Enriching faith is far different than providing supporting evidence for faith.”
—L.M.K.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add Comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE LAW OF ADAPTATION WITH SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF LIFE
To read the entire article, go to: http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:LOTY_Pierre_Jean_Daniel
This newly discovered law comes as a death stroke to evolution theory. We have the guarantee from the nature of the underlying philosophy (Intelligent Design) that the resulting application (programmable bacteria) is free of eugenics.
First of all; let us recall the fundamental reasoning in evolutionism: natural selection coupled with mutations can transform a species S1 into a totally new species S2.
Then, let us assume an individual S1 is under difficult conditions and undergoes modifications.
What evolutionism did not consider is that at the same time, another process comes into play: difficult conditions cause S1 to enter into a resistant form, with a subsequent loss of life.
What if conditions improve? As shown with the 1970’s research led by Peter and Rosemary Grant, “in the years following the drought, previous finches (with smaller beaks) again dominated the population.
There was a reversal in the direction of the selection; the population subjected to selection oscillating back and forth each time the climate changed.”
Thus, modifications tend to reduce if difficult conditions do not persist. However, there is absolute need of a directional, steady line of changes, should the species cross over to a new form of life.
Now, in case difficult conditions do persist, two processes admittedly would run parallel. As modifications would increase, the “quantity of life” would decrease downward limits of tolerance. Modifications would at best help the species to cope, though with a subsequent loss of life.
Surprisingly, the species S2 that admittedly evolved from S1 is found with high “quantity of life”. But S2, which is assumed to have undergone the full amount of modifications, should have undergone accordingly the full amount of adverse conditions.
Thus, S2 would have been found with a lowest “quantity of life”. Indeed, natural selection, coupled with mutations leads necessarily toward the extinction of the species.
As evidenced by the law of recurrent variation, the range of possible adaptations is preprogrammed in DNA, thus imposing inherent boundaries between kinds (groups of species defined only through lineage criteria).
LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is so funny. READ what you wrote, and see if you can actually follow the logic. Typical anti-evolutionist to use broken logic in a confusing (more like confused) way to support their "science".
My point of view is, I think Human beings like to invent an excuse for a spiritual presence, because what they don't know is what is beyond their comprehension. But basically spirituality will never be abolished beacuse some people are weak minded and believing in those ideas makes them healthy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion cannot be a threat to science, for they belong to two separate domains of human endeavor. While religion and science are practically and mostly incompatible, they could complement each other at times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf faith is defined as a set of rules and principles or any strong belief in such rules and principles, then science could well be a faith -- the extension of which is naturally a religion.
In the context of theology, one tends NOT to talk about right or wrong, because they don’t really exist. However, in science, one would argue about the correctness or incorrectness of a theory. Consequently, science depends on experimentation or replication for verification or falsification, whereas religion doesn’t.
(Tan Boon Tee, btt1943@yahoo.com)
The Dawkins and Krauss discouse is excellent, but in one very important aspect they miss the point: For most people, religion is ingrained upon them from day one as part of not only who THEY are, but their parents, family community etc. Attacking any part of their religion theatens the whole pie. I think this more of a subconcious thing for most. I think the focus of effort should be in reassuring religous fokk that MOST of what they believe is supported by all: reinforcement of morality, the creation of institutions to support moral behavior etc. and THAT IS NOT IN QUESTION. I think a better approach is to reinforce all that is good about their religion while gently suggesting that blindly insisting that the myths of their ancesters must be dogmatically forwarded perhaps gets in the way of their greater good. Some evangelical groups seem to be coming around to this on their own - their new focus on the environment etc. Just shifting the focus with a good dose of "How To Win Friends And Infuence People" would seem to be the right approach. The message: your religion has a good and powerful core. Let's all work on shedding the stuff that gets in the way of that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is not equipped to supply the solutions we will need to solve forthcoming ressource depletion, pollution or climate change issues. Religion is supposed to save people's souls, science alone will be able to save our physical existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience finds truth of how and when. Science cannot explain “why” nor provide moral judgment. Science can provide a view of consequences of our actions but not if the outcome is “good” or “bad”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US Founding Fathers (too bad we did not recognize any Founding Mothers since I am certain there were many if only in the background) got it right: Governments were instituted among Men (read Women included) to promote rights endowed by their Creator among these being Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and that governments derives their power from the governed.
Prior to the founding of the US, all governments especially kings, were granted power as a divine right from a God or gods. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion(s) is a form of government based on power from a God. I know that it must be disquieting to the thoughtful of those of faith to wonder if the God of Abraham is the same as the Father of Jesus and the same as Allah. The historical Jesus would not have crucified if his claim were that of the “Messiah”, or “Son of God” but the claim of “King of the Jews” nailed him to the cross. We must all recognize that religion is integral to government.
Science can make it abundantly clear that the Universe is made to evolve intelligent life from the stuff of the Universe. Carl Sagan was right to quote that we are made of Star stuff and the Universe that made trees, oceans, bugs, also made intelligent beings that can begin to understand the Universe. We happen to be an example. There may be others. This creative Universe endowed us with rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness which are the basic human needs and engrained in our very nature. From this understanding of human nature comes the need to develop conscience (internal guidance) and laws (external moral guidance) essential for a successful society and government.
Science and the US form of government derived from a moral people is the emerging religion.
God here!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsk your questions and I will answer....you have one chance, so you had better think about what you really want to know.
God Here again ....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see if you really have the faith you claim to have, and all you so called evolutionist, let's see if you can understand the true meaning of what you are suggesting.
I don't think any of you really have the level of intelligence (Yet) to really understand what you are argueing about....I bet it's only the Evo's that will respond to this and actually ask some questions.....I know for a fact that the Creationist won't ...dont fear the truth, my children embrace it!....let's see.......... ask me and I will tell , tell me and I will ask, all that exsist is choice, ...so you really need to ask the questions that fear you most.
I don't really like to get in the middle of this debate over science vs. religion but I did notice one thing. The Christians seem to be closer to reality. The Christians say the universe is thousands of years old. The scientists say millions. I thought the Jesus Christ of science, aka Albert Einstein said there is no such thing as time and all is happening at once. Doesn't that make a less amount of time closer to the truth? When you realize the universe is infinite both out and in you realize space and time is an illusion. God made science and religion. To deny either one is folly. They both exist in our world... our reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistemet_nosce: "I don't really like to get in the middle of this debate over science vs. religion but I did notice one thing. The Christians seem to be closer to reality. The Christians say the universe is thousands of years old. The scientists say millions. I thought the Jesus Christ of science, aka Albert Einstein said there is no such thing as time and all is happening at once. Doesn't that make a less amount of time closer to the truth?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, temet_nosce, if you don't like to get in the middle of this debate, then best not join in. But of Christians, my understanding is that only the fringe (but vocal) minority groups of Christians - creationists, Young Earthists, and advocates of Intelligent Design (the last of which tend to deny any religious affiliations) - claim what you suggest. All other Christians go along with the science.
As to what you say about time: What Einstein actually said was that time is relative. Whatever happens elsewhere in the universe, here on Planet Earth we have to contend with a standard linear time mode which moves sequentially from past through present to future, and this is the time mode which is used by the biological sciences. If you wish to involve yourself with an omnipresent eternal Now, then perhaps you need the physics department. Or theology.
Science and Religion has always been a debatable subject matter among many great thinker. One thing I would suggest to the scientist like Dawkins is that they must study all the scriptures of world religion in details and then they should comment on the limitation of religion. For example the origin of life and universe in Bhagavat Gita and Bhagavatam (Indian Vaisnav literature) is clearly explained with all the required data like when the life originated and how. And the data that are given in these literature are very much close to the prediction of modern science. Apart from these two question there are many other details about the existence of GOD is given. And whatever details is given in these literature are proved by the method of spiritual practice by several saints.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo any scientist who is really interested in debating on science vs. religion must go through all the scriptures of world religion before commenting anything about GOD. One more important thing to get the knowledge about GOD is to meet the person who have really seen GOD. And there are many saintly person who have really seen GOD. Now my question here to Dawkins and his followers is how to convince about atheism to those people who have seen GOD.
May lord bless you a right path.
I like a lot of what Krauss has to say here, but his logic is a bit loopy in that last comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly, I agree that it's crazy to demand an understanding of everything, but he seems to be missing the point that evidence of which he doesn't have knowledge could be that which would change his mind. Science does this all the time. Discoveries are made and they change the landscape of what is known to science.
It's funny how some subjects are used as "red flags" to pigeonhole individuals. UFOs is one such subject. Anyone who believes in UFOs (flying saucers or alien spacecraft; i.e. more than Unidentified Flying Objects), must be loony. But this kind of "guilt by association" or demonizing of someone is very unscientific. And it reveals a flaw in the fabric of science -- ridicule.
Ridicule seems to have a prominent place in science. I've seen too much of it in my career. But this is ego, not science.
For too long, "Clovis First" dogma made ridicule a painful reality for anyone digging below the Clovis horizon.
Apparently, scientists ridiculed Edison concerning the incandescent light bulb. And ridiculed Schliemann before he discovered what appears to have been Troy.
Do we need ridicule in science? I think not. Ridicule only serves ego and impatience. Too often ridicule gets in the way of science.
One archaeologist refused to investigate ruins found in the Bahamas, because of its association with the "A" word (Atlantis). He didn't want to jeopardize his career.
That's sad, but scientists are human.
Science has done some great things, but then scientists have failed us, too.
For instance, a growing number of scientists, engineers and architects have staked their careers on the idea that 9/11 was an inside job -- based on the facts -- facts ignored by the official reports. Tons of iron microspheres prove extremely high temperatures and controlled demolition. Controlled demolition proves an inside job, because all 3 WTC buildings were highly secure. After all, the Bush family run security company was in charge. NIST's scientists finally admitted WTC7 went into free-fall, but insanely stated that this was compatible with their theory of symmetrical collapse from asymmetric damage.
Sad to see science being trashed by unethical scientists.
Religion may have far more to offer than they realize. But too many in religion equate their meager interpretations of the Bible with truth. Even if the Bible contains truth, their conflicting interpretations are not equivalent.
Both sides have a long way to go
Hubble telescope scientists predicted disorganized galaxies in the 'deep field' view. (the most beautiful picture of anything I've ever seen, by the way) It's not puzzling to men of faith when those predictions were wrong and the billions of years old galaxies so far away (back in time as it were) appeared as organized and well formed as our own. Einstein "Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind" I doubt he realized it, Einstein nearly quote Solomon's 3000 year old Proverb with, "All science requires faith in the harmony of nature" Creation is filled with the indisputable consistancies of God's grand design, according to very specific laws. If any reacts to my post, please don't assign to me those trite slanders the Richard Dawkins ilk typically hide behind......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this