According to the drumbeat from religious leaders and the media, religion and science are heading for a profound reconciliation and synthesis that will benefit all humanity.  The purpose of this discussion is to expose the irrationality of this contention and state the proper relationship of the two.

Let’s deal first with the claims that religion and science deal with entirely different aspects of human existence, complement each other, and are not in conflict.

• A recent letter signed by 10,200 clergy from across the nation stated: “We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.”
• Pope Benedict has also recently come out with similar statements. Speaking to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pope stated that the dialog between religion and science would actually help the faithful see “the logic of faith in God.”
• An article in The Oberlin Review entitled “Religion and Science” by science columnist Margaret Putney is typical of the thinking of many in the media: “First of all, science cannot answer religious questions. Science can only address the observable. Professor of Physics Dan Styer heard once that a ‘question is trivial if it can be answered with scientific inquiry,’ implying that the questions humans truly care about are those that cannot be answered through observation and physical tests – the basis of all science.”
• The John Templeton Foundation, a powerful voice promoting the compatibility of religion and science, finances scientific research (but only if the study demonstrates compatibility) and its vast Templeton Foundation Press with provocative book titles like Evolution: The Disguised Friend of Faith? and Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion.

Many freethinkers will immediately see the obvious fallacy underlying the above ideas: the major conflicts between religion and science have actually not resided in a spiritual realm but in a material one. And the material Universe – how it originated and how it functions – is the exclusive province of science.

As is so often the case, Richard Dawkins has expressed this idea with unexcelled clarity and succinctness: “Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it’s just bad science. Don’t fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. Thus religions should not be allowed to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false.”

I’ve previously mentioned a classic book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by Andrew D. White published by Prometheus. Don’t be put off by the ponderous title. I recommend this book as a must-read by all freethinkers. White extensively documents how Christianity made major pronouncements about the material Universe and how it has been proven wrong in each and every case.

Frequently, the church stated that disproving their beliefs about the natural Universe, thought to be infallible, such as the Earth being flat or the Sun rotating around the Earth, would cause their religion to collapse. In each case, however, religion crawled off, licked its wounds, and returned cowed but with a new contorted rationale to continue its beliefs.

The reason religion is consistently wrong in offering explanations about the natural Universe can be summed up in one word: faith. It is the Achilles heel of religion – the ultimate copout (I’ve written about this in a previous post on this site).  Any belief, no matter how absurd, can be justified by faith.  Science, on the other hand, must reach its conclusions using rules of logic and collection of incontrovertible evidence that can be replicated by other scientists. Scientific findings are always subject to revision if contradictory evidence is found, whereas an impervious wall of faith usually justifies religious beliefs.

Religious fundamentalists, of course, are the most vehemently anti-science, at least on issues that conflict with their religious beliefs, while not disputing and reaping the benefits of scientific discoveries not conflicting with these beliefs. Generally, fundamentalists have no interest in changing any of their religious beliefs that clash with science since they believe their religious convictions are infallible.

Gradually, many non-fundamentalist religions have come to “accept” scientific findings as a fallback position, yet they still try to save some remnant of their former religious convictions by saying that a deity is behind the creation and the workings of the natural Universe. This manner of “accepting” scientific findings is bogus and shows an ignorance of the main premise of science that no iota of the supernatural is accepted in any scientific explanation. Non-fundamentalist religion, not science, has usually been the initiator when dialogue is attempted between science and religion.

But if religion and science are irretrievably and fundamentally incompatible, why do the media give the impression that many scientists are religious and find no conflict between religion and science? Again, let’s look at the evidence.

The media often cite the religiosity of great scientists, especially Albert Einstein, as compelling evidence of religion-science compatibility. Like other scientists, Einstein sometimes used the word “god” as synonymous with the laws of nature. He never believed in an anthropomorphic god; biographical accounts record that he rejected religion from an early age.

Upon being asked if he believed in God by Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, Einstein replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.” In the book Albert Einstein: The Human Side is this quote: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

The beliefs of scientists as a group are much less religious than the general public, particularly those in the natural sciences.  The very best and most prestigious scientists are barely religious at all.

A Harris Poll in 2003 found 90% of the general public believes in God, a figure that can be used to compare with the beliefs of scientists described below.

In 1998, an important report appeared in Nature entitled “Leading Scientists Still Reject God” by Edward Larson and Larry Witham, who did a follow-up study on two landmark studies by psychologist James H. Leuba done in 1914 and 1933. Larson and Witham stated: “Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever – almost total.”

Leuba found in his initial 1914 study that 40% of scientists in general believed in God; Larson and Witham found this figure unchanged. The story was different and highly significant in the case of “greater scientists,” defined in the 1998 study as members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, where 93% (72% atheists and 21% agnostic) did not believe in God.

Among the “greater scientists,” belief in God decreased steadily over the years (1914, 28%; 1933, 15%; 1998, 7%). Larson and Witham included in their report this explanatory quote from Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins: “You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don’t think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.”

In a 2005 scientific conference at City College of New York, a student in the audience rose to ask the panelists, all Nobel laureates, this question: “Can you be a good scientist and believe in God?” Herbert A. Hauptman, speaking for the panel, replied rapidly and forcefully with an unequivocal, “No!” He explained that belief in the supernatural, especially belief in God, is not only incompatible with good science but also that, “this kind of belief is damaging to the well-being of the human race.”

Stephen Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1979 for his work in particle physics, expresses views that are typical for the academy.  In regard to the effect of science on religion, he observes, “I think one of the great historical contributions of science is to weaken the hold of religion. That’s a good thing.”

Weinberg further notes that, “The experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant. Most scientists I know simply don’t think about it very much. They don’t think about religion enough to qualify as practicing atheists.” He added that most scientists he knows who do believe in God believe in “a God who is behind the laws of nature but who is not intervening.”

The effect of science on scientists’ religious beliefs now seems clear. It leads to a progressive loss of these beliefs, and among really top-level scientists, dramatically so. This weakening hold on scientists has increased as the explanatory prowess of science has increased about the material Universe and as scientific investigations of the historical claims of sacred texts have shown them to be grossly unreliable.

Science has come a long way since Isaac Newton wrote a lot more about the Bible than the laws of nature, and scientists thought their primary function was to glorify God by elucidating the workings of his marvelous creation.

Given this evidence, what can be done about religion’s efforts to force reconciliation with science in explaining the natural world?

First, our best scientists have to improve communications with the general public to explain clearly why science and science alone has dominion in the natural Universe.

Second, responding with lawsuits can be effective, as in Dover, Pennsylvania, where an effort to introduce “intelligent design” into a science curriculum was resoundingly defeated. The courts, where conclusions are supposed to be based on logic and evidence much like science, can expose the irrationality of many religious claims.

Third, not only the findings of science but also its basic nature in relation to religion must be better taught in schools.

Fourth, scientific knowledge must be imparted to all of society and more skillfully than it is presently. Most polls show a woeful lack of scientific knowledge in the general population.

Science must stand firm and resist the encroachment of religious explanations of the natural world. As the history of the relationship between religion and science reveals, religion always gradually readjusts its beliefs to accommodate new scientific findings. This interplay eventually results in a progressive weakening of the hold of religion on society, much to the benefit of all.

When the natural world is legitimately ceded to science, religion can freely romp in whatever illusory supernatural world is left to them.

Related posts:

1. What Science Says about Morality
2. Spot the Flaws: Unpacking the Religion Variable

Most people don’t have to think very hard to come up with organizations they believe are compassionate and moral. Churches and faith-based organizations usually come to mind. It’s a misconception, however, that “religion” is the only measure of morality and that only religious people do good work.

There are also many secular/atheist charitable organizations in the United States and around the world made up of caring, compassionate, moral, ethical, intelligent people doing tireless work to ease pain and suffering and educate and promote peace. Think of Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International , Oxfam International, The American Red Cross, and The Union for Concerned Scientists, to name a few. Many secular, atheist, agnostic, nonreligious individuals also quietly contribute to charities of their choice and to their communities.

It’s not surprising, however, that nonbelievers have not been acknowledged as participants in charity. Historically, our communities have been structured so that churches are the main means for large numbers of people to gather to promote and implement charitable work. The following quote from the web site Beingism.org makes this point:

It may be that nonreligious individuals are less likely to form communities than their religious counterparts. Certainly, the lack of a preexisting community (such as an established church) is a relative hindrance to community-building. No doubt also willingness to question pervasive social norms, particularly when they are part of belief systems from which most people derive emotional, social, and/or financial support, probably tends to accompany an individualistic (rather than community-oriented) approach to life. In addition, social stigma reduces the community resources available to nonreligious people, both financially (e.g., nonreligious institutions are not given the same financial benefits as faith-based organizations) and socially (e.g., fear of discrimination leads to increased difficulty in reaching out to find others with similar values). Unfortunately, these factors have fractured communities of nonreligious people, making it extremely difficult for them to agree upon or articulate a positive vision for the future or to create change. This lack of community also leads religious communities to conclude that nonreligious people are without ethics.

One of the biggest myths still being perpetrated is that atheists/nonbelievers are selfish, immoral heretics. The very word ‘atheist’ conjures up images of Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Take Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News interview with Richard Dawkins. O’Reilly implied that it was ‘atheism’ that led these heinous men to commit crimes against humanity. Mr. Dawkins was given little time to rebut this stupidity.

Religion is everywhere. We are inundated with religious television programming seven days a week. Religious pundits regularly demonize and dismiss secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, and those who are nonreligious, leaving no room for further dialogue or understanding.  The Internet has many sites educating the public about nonbelief, but I doubt that many Christians or other religious folks visit these sites. If they do, it’s to excoriate what is said there, not to understand it.

Few religious people have any grasp of the challenges that atheists must deal wth. People risk losing their jobs, family, friends, and their standing in their community when they go public about their nonbelief. They’re left to feel that they exist in a secret, underground, fringe community whose freedoms are in jeopardy if they speak their truth. I think most religious people would be shocked to learn how many nonbelievers there are in the US. Some are probably sitting in pews on most Saturdays or Sundays, right next to believers.

Nonbelievers come from every walk of life. We’re teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, technicians, engineers, gardeners, janitors, soldiers, homemakers, florist, bankers (good ones), politicians (also good ones), you name it. What distinguishes us is that we have learned to THINK FOR OURSELVES; we are free thinkers. We don’t need religious dogma to tell us how to do good work or what it means to be a moral, compassionate human being.

Most atheists who donate their time, money, and energy to charity are not motivated by the wrath of a supernatural entity, by institutionalized pressures to do good work, or by expected Earthly or Heavenly rewards. Yes, there are atheists/nonbelievers who are hateful, inhumane, and mean spirited, just as there religious people who are hateful, inhumane and mean spirited too. These negative descriptors are not synonymous only with atheism.

It must be frightening to religious believers to realize that the number of nonbelievers is growing. Due to the prevailing ignorance perpetuated by believers with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, it’s time for organizations of nonreligious freethinkers to do whatever they can to educate the public and dispel the age-old myth that atheists/nonbelievers are immoral, selfish, and not charitable. Atheists need to become more vocal and visible in numbers, not just as lone activists doing anonymous good works, not for recognition per se, but for educational purposes so that anyone now and in the future can be free to choose not to believe.

Related posts:

1. FL Governor Crist Assaults Atheist; Apology Demanded

With all of the fun and fascination at Skeptrack 2009, a couple of controversies emerged in the conversations there. The first, discussed openly in a few panels, was the role of religion in the skeptic/atheist/freethought movement. This is still a sore spot for some, particularly given the wide range of individuals who fall under the freethought umbrella. The second controversy, the dearth of women and other minorities in freethought, was more subtle and didn’t get its own discussion panel. It was left to casual hallway conversations but has become a hot discussion topic in the freethinker blogosphere in the past weeks.

Should skeptics talk about religion and faith? Why should atheists care about ghost hunting and aliens? Why is this even a problem? The problem lies in the wide-ranging spectrum of freethought. While there is a large overlap of skeptical thought and non-belief in religion, there are differences at both ends. On the one hand, religion is a personal issue for many skeptics, of no interest until it begins to infringe on science, medical care, or education. On the other hand there are atheists who are skeptical but don’t care to tackle ghosts and psychics. Personal woo seems harmless and is only of interest when it achieves cult status.

That leads us to the kinds of tensions that arise at large events like Skeptrack and James Randi’s The Amazing Meetings. These gatherings cover both topics. Skeptrack had panels on everything from “The Truth About Ghost Hunting” to “The Future of Atheism.” Ultimately, we have to remember that we are truly a “big tent” movement. Some of us are going to have to accept that the discussion of UFOs and lake monsters is just another way to promote critical thinking; some of us are going to have to accept that religion is a topic that can and should be debunked like any other. I am hopeful that the freethought movement can handle this challenge. We skeptics are intelligent, passionate people with the ability to realize that we can share our strength at the places where we converge. Everything else is just details.

As far as the demographic issues, the freethought movement is still largely older, white, and male. Women are making large inroads but may still feel like outsiders. Few minorities show up at skeptic groups and events, and college outreach is still in the early stages. Fortunately, I don’t think freethinkers are overtly sexist, racist, or homophobic, except for a few unfortunate exceptions. The biases that still linger are an issue to be sure, but those which a group of rational people could overcome if they wanted.

I don’t want to get into the gender issue too much as it’s been far better covered by others, particularly at Skepchick.org and in an excellent two-part post this week from Greta Christina’s atheist blog.

I would mention, however, that I think Derek and Swoopy, the hosts of the Skepticality podcast and directors of Skeptrack, did a wonderful job this year of bringing balance to the female equation. Women were well represented at the panels and were not only included but also leaders in discussions of science, the future of the movement, education, and critical thinking. The Skepchick panel was a big hit with the attendees and is a strong force for attracting young, female critical thinkers.

Getting together at events like Skeptrack at DragonCon is wonderful and fun and one of the best ways to grow and evolve the freethought movement. Despite a 30+ year history of advancing critical thinking, the current freethought movement is still young enough and really just coming into its own. I believe that we still have the time, the resources, and the open minds to handle these challenges and controversies and create a more cohesive, inclusive, and stronger group going forward. Stick around. Things are just starting to get interesting!

Related posts:

1. The Skeptrack Experience at DragonCon – Part 1
2. Education is Not Just for Kids