This would normally be a Philosophy Friday post, but I think I’ve used up my relativistic arguments as to why I can post a Philosophy Friday in the middle of the week. Might have to let that particular logical cannon recharge for a while.
Anyway, this is a cross-post from a submission made to the Young Australian Skeptics – here’s the original.
For those that know me, the prospect of my ever writing an article with such a title would generally be considered to be on a par with a certain chilly meteorological event happening in the nethermost infernal regions. But hear me out.
I was listening yesterday to PZ Myers being interviewed on a UK Christian radio show called Unbelievable? The topic was around the inherent incompatibility of science and religion, and his opponent (or conversationalist) in the debate was a pleasant enough chap who simply didn’t understand what all the fuss was about, and why on earth should the “New Atheists” be getting so worked up?
Personally, I think that the whole “New Atheists” thing is simply a derogatory smokescreen thrown up to confuse the argument – sandbox your opponent and you’re halfway there – and you could tell that PZ was becoming increasingly frustrated with the conversation. He was as lucid and rational as ever, but it was like he was trying to punch fog.
I think that the “science vs religion” debate has stalled to the point where it can’t continue in any meaningful or productive manner. Why? Because the definitions are too blunt and too broad. Perhaps not from the perspective of scientists, but trying to land solid punches on “religion” is doomed, because religion is far too rough a concept. You can have two people who believe utterly different things, don’t agree with each other about anything and yet who are still both religious. As atheists if we want to argue against their position, we increasingly find that we have to use lowest common factor arguments in order to have any relevance. And I don’t believe that this approach works.
Here, I line up with Sam Harris’ argument that atheist is too blunt and instrument to bring into the debate. Our opponents are so disparate and believe such a wide array of gumpf that trying to present a consistent anti-thesist case will almost always fall flat.
Not that it’s not important to tackle specific beliefs when specific beliefs are the key issue. But have you noticed that the faithful don’t like being tackled about what it is they actually believe? And when we try to pin them down we’re accused of having a simplistic understanding of what it means to be religious.
OK then – no more attacking religion (except for whenever an opportunity too good to miss arises!). And no more science vs religion arguments. Let’s bring it back to basics – what’s the one ability which any decent scientist has to have? The ability to reason. And what’s the one thing which is common to all religious people, regardless of what they actually believe? Faith.
On a day-to-day basis, scientists have to reason – they have to figure out where their work is taking them, how to get there and what the implications are. Of course scientists are people too and can make mistakes, fail to follow up on findings correctly or allow their personal biases to get in the way. But the inherent failsafes of the scientific method are geared to smooth out these bumps in the road over time.
As for people of faith, no matter how intelligent, reasonable or rational they may be, at some point they will come up against a particular precept or dogma which has absolutely nothing to back it up, support it, or otherwise indicate its veracity – it may be (and probably will be) utterly counter-intuitive and contrary to all the evidence. And in order to remain faithful, they will have to believe it. Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed rode on a flying horse, Joseph Smith wasn’t a spectacular fraud, Scientology really has something going for it…
The argument isn’t between science and religion, it’s between reason and faith. So as rationalists, skeptics and atheists lets not get dragged into the wrong fight.
