To my mind, Sam Harris’s otherwise fine new book, The Moral Landscape, has three weaknesses.

First, much like his blockbuster, The End of Faith, this books starts blazingly strong, then peters as the page numbers go into triple digits, particularly post page 150. Harris seems to include previously written filler to bring the book to hardcover length. He throws in a few, fairly lengthy tangential-at-best arguments that don’t seem to advance his argument so much as attempt to settle unsettled disputes with intellectual adversaries.

Second, the book is conspicuously brain-focused. Not coincidentally, Harris’s own field is neurobiology, and he understandably emphasizes it. Yet the subtitle of the book reads, “How Science Can Determine Human Values,” not “How Neurobiology Can Determine Human Values.” Sure, stick with what you know to a degree, but science is much bigger and has much more to offer than the relatively immature field of neurobiology alone (now seemingly in vogue thanks to fMRI research).

A more obviously interdisciplinary approach would make for a stronger argument, considering both the number and types of variables involved and what other scientific fields already have to say about morality.

Morality can, has, and should be studied on many levels. Yes, our brains are epicenter of all we are and do, yet without bodies and their unique physiology (muscles, organs, hormones, etc.) the “felt experiences” that Harris speaks of as being at the heart of human flourishing become impoverished.

Additionally, without the input of family, social groups and culture, without learning experiences of any sort, without transient environmental influences, too, human psychology would consist of nothing more than innate temperament coupled with potential. As importantly, morality is a largely social phenomenon, and without a thorough understanding of it at that level, we are likely missing something.

Yes, the brain is what it all comes down to — in a sense. Harris writes, “Cultural norms influence our thinking and behavior by altering the structure and function of our brains.” Back to neurobiology again.

Yet this boiling it all down to the brain strikes me as akin to talking about evolution exclusively at the level of the gene. Is evolution all about individual genes? Of course not. For one, the process of natural selection takes place at the level of the organism, and, secondly, evolution itself is defined at the level of populations of related organisms, of entire species. A similar need for a multi-level perspective likely exists in the case of morality.

My hunch is that it might be more productive to place greater focus on what’s “going on” with a person in the context of his/her social group(s). After all, no sane human thrives when their world is in turmoil.

Harris writes:

“It is surprising that so little research has been done on belief, as few mental states exert so sweeping an influence over human life.” p.115

Not only does the book focus heavily on neurobiology, but Harris places special emphasis on the “brain states” capable of being measured thanks to new technology. Yet while static images of brain function do nicely lend themselves to an empirical inquiry, these brain states are transient and certainly not the full story. Rather, the bigger picture is about mental processes — events — generated by a myriad of inner and outer conditions.

Harris’s extreme focus on states of the brain nearly suggests a Matrix-like view of human psychology. As one who believes the field of psychology in general is far too individual-focused, this seems at odds with a potentially more fruitful perspective. As the study of human evolution is beginning to make clear, our kind is brainy, yes, yet that brainy-ness likely evolved to allow us to better adapt to and fully utilize extremely complex social environments.

My third and major beef with the book is that it did not contain enough science. How could a book purportedly about how science can determine human values contain so little science? Okay, it is a young field, particularly if we focus on neurobiology. But there is a ton of science out there that directly relates to human morality, including but not limited to that provided by the fields of cultural anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics.

The book in general struck me as more philosophical than scientific. More concrete examples would have made for a better book. Or maybe even a single, fully-fleshed out example. Yes, you must implicitly and perhaps explicitly start with first premises and a groundwork of reasoning. Still, what better way to put some flesh and bones on the skeleton of your argument than a few, full examples?

Divorce comes to mind. Divorce rates in this country and others have climbed over the last few decades. Many preachers and politicians claim that the increase in divorce rates tells us that “family values” are in crisis.

Are they? Is immorality on the rise and people in need of more religion to remedy the situation?

To progress towards an accurate understanding and a solution (if needed), I turn to science. What does science have to say about the increase in divorce rates? Off hand: that increases in divorce rates worldwide are strongly associated with a number of factors, the most important of these being both legal changes (availability of no-fault divorces) and the changing social/educational/economic status of women. Where women are better educated and are capable of providing for themselves and their children — you will find higher divorce rates.

So the preachers with their terrifically-superficial religious approach are mistaken. Higher divorce rates are not simply the result of a decline in family values. One could make the argument that if you value happy moms and more free and flexible family structures, an increase in divorce rates might actually be a change for the better. Is it a bad thing for women to be free to end bad marriages? Not all marriages are good, not all lend themselves to individual and collective flourishing. In the least, a more wise solution to climbing divorce rates would be to persuade people to avoid entering into the types of marriages they will later want to end.

Many other examples come to mind. But more on that in my next post – The Moral Landscape: How the Sciences Can Guide Morality.

Related posts:

1. The Moral Landscape: The Highs
2. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?
3. What Science Says about Morality

Sam Harris’s new book, The Moral Landscape, is a thought-provoking read. I recommend it. My highest praise is reflected in this note I scribbled while reading: “One of the most important and clear-minded books I have ever read.”

I wrote that? Yes, though my overall enthusiasm did wane somewhat toward the end (as my next post will tell). It is a book I will keep in my personal library. And I have few.

What’s so good about the book? First, the importance of the topic and the straightforward, unapologetic way Harris attacks it. Too often the subject of human morality has been ceded to philosophy in academia and religion in the public square.

As for the ceding of morality to religion, this is both mistaken (if not ironic) and unproductive.

Why is designating religion as the source and domain of morality mistaken? Read the texts. The older the text, the more likely it reflects anachronistic values. Xenophobia, sexism, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Okay, a person may respond, but that was religion in the wrong hands. Now it is in the right hands. To that I would respond that it is not religion that corrected itself, but modernity that caused religion to adapt to the changing world. So religion is really not the source of today’s best versions of morality. Sure, pulpits can and do help broadcast values best suited to today’s human environments. But not all the time. As I mentioned in a previous post, religions frequently serve as a brake on positive social change, on extending rights and compassion toward an ever-expanding circle of people.

No, religion is not the source of morality. It is not only ironic but fully relevant that research into moral behavior has revealed scant and weak association at best, an inverse relation at worst, between religious affiliation and what we would label moral and ethical behavior.

One glaring, specific example: Not hundreds of years ago, but recently the Catholic Church demonstrated in its actions a greater concern for protecting their coffers and member priests than prosecution those guilty of sexual crimes against children. Yes, those supposedly occupying the high ground of morality — priests — do molest children. They will also steal and cheat. Ironic? Not really. For while religions most explicitly give voice to issues of morality, moral behavior likely has more silent sources: our genes (apes and other animals show rudimentary forms of moral behavior), our individual temperaments, our family and social environments, etc.

A second important point Harris makes is this:

“I will argue that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science.”

Why science? Because religious values, as Harris puts it, “come from a voice in a whirlwind.” They just are. We know because a god supposedly whispered it in a prophet’s ear. Which is a very superficial knowing. This “just do it” type of morality is fully shallow and impervious to correction. What’s more, it promotes mistaken and small-minded motivations for behaving well. To please my god, to get into heaven, etc. In reality, morality is about social dynamics. How should I treat others so that I and my group-mates near and far can live a good life?

Of course, the task of understanding what thoughts best express and what behaviors best promote “a good life” is a daunting task. Yet what better discipline to inform our attempts than one that depends upon continual input and complete transparency? “Just because” violates a cardinal rule in science, so you will not find it there. Instead, there is nonstop digging and debate, which leads to progress.

As one educated in psychology, I completely concur with this line by Harris:

“A science of morality would, of necessity, require a deeper understanding of human motivation.”

What do religions tell us about human motivation? That we have been saddled with original sin? That we can be inhabited by devils and/or evil impulses? Not much real insight there.

From where can we attain a deeper understanding? From science. Some would argue philosophy, but I would disagree. For the most relevant philosophical discussions on morals are informed by real-world data, best supplied by science. And the most relevant science has already integrated the most robust insights provided by philosophy.

Yes, determining exactly which values should be considered essential to human morality is not going to be easy. But it is a nascent undertaking, thus patience would be wise.

Harris writes -

“It seems to me, however, that the concept of well-being is like the concept of physical health: it resists precise definition, and yet it is indispensible.”

While Harris’s term for what I call the good life — “human flourishing” — has received criticism, for good reason and bad, his attempt represents an initial probing. He has taken a step toward explicitly exploring the subject while armed with information and insights supplied by science. What’s not to applaud?

Besides the importance of the topic, and the thoroughly enjoyable agility of Harris’s writing and reasoning style — he often strikes me as a pen-wielding Zorro — there was much food for thought in the book. And the biggest bite I personally took was into Harris’s own neurobiological research. In a study on brain response to different types of cognition — ‘what is true’ and ‘what is good’ — he found that “it appears that we have a common system for judging truth and falsity in both domains.”

“In fact, mathematical belief (e.g., ’2 + 6 + 8 = 16′) showed a similar pattern of activity to ethical belief (e.g., ‘It is good to let your children know that you love them’), and these were perhaps the most dissimilar sets of stimuli used in our experiment. This suggests that the physiology of belief may be the same regardless of a proposition’s content. It also suggests that the division between facts and values does not make much sense in terms of underlying brain functions.”

Interesting. Very interesting. Ethical beliefs, it seems, may simply be subset of conclusions a brain makes, rather than distinct phenomena.

To end with a final, particularly juicy quote based upon findings provided by the psychological sciences:

“As far as our understanding of the world is concerned–there are no facts without values.”

To conclude something is “a fact,” must we value measuring and replicability? Must we value something we call “making sense”? I wonder.

It seems to me that emotion and cognition are a set of conjoined twins. And morality part of the twins’ shared heart.

—

This article simultaneously posted at my home blog, 360 Degree Skeptic.

Tomorrow – The Moral Landscape: The Lows

Related posts:

1. The Moral Landscape: The Lows
2. What Science Says about Morality
3. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

The Bible’s appraisal of male homosexuality is clear. Leviticus 20:13 states: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” It is not surprising that this sort of pronouncement sometimes leads to intolerance and in extreme cases to assaults and even murder.

In a study done at Kent State University on nursing students in 1999, researchers found there was a significant correlation between homophobia, frequency of church attendance, and Christian Orthodoxy.The Christian religion, especially the Catholic and the Fundamentalist Protestant branches, has contended that homosexuality is a sinful life-style choice, one that is voluntarily entered into, and one than can be abandoned if desired.

Unfortunately, I seldom hear individuals quoting scientific evidence but only biblical references and long held prejudices. Even my fellow physicians are often unaware of the scientific literature on this subject.

Sexual orientation refers to whether a person’s erotic desires are directed toward the same sex (homosexuality), the opposite sex (heterosexuality), or both sexes (bisexuality). A person’s actions may not always match his or her sexual orientation, such as when a person conceals his sexual orientation for practical  reasons. In this discussion we will be focused on sexual orientation.

Seldom do we hear from psychiatrists and psychologists, who encounter homosexuals in their practices, or from scientific researchers. In 1973, on the basis of research findings, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a disorder from their official manual, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Their conclusion was: “The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.” They further added: “There is no  published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of ‘reparative therapy’ as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation.” In 1975, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the conclusions of the American Psychiatric Association. The World Health Organization passed a resolution in 1990 to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from its official manual. In 2000, the American Psychiatric Association reaffirmed its position of 1973 and stated that “in the last four decades, ‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure.” In 2001, The United States Surgeon General, David Satcher M.D., issued a report maintaining that “there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.”

In considering the cause of homosexuality, there are three possibilities: environmental, intrauterine effects during pregnancy, or genetic.

First, let’s discuss the longstanding and firmly held belief that there is something different in the environment that causes a person to be gay. Sigmund Freud, Alfred Kinsey, William Masters, and Virginia Johnson held that homosexuality was socially learned. Bailey and Pillard, however, researchers that have published the most studies in the field, reviewed all the scientific evidence in 1991 in the Archives of General Psychiatry and concluded: “Previous attempts to test psychodynamic and psychosocial theories have largely yielded negative findings and emphasize the necessity of considering causal factors arising within the individual and not just his psychosexual environment.” This very cautiously phrased scientific statement is basically saying that these researchers reviewed all of the studies and the evidence for any environmental cause of homosexuality is lacking.

Although intrauterine influences are suggested as a factor in homosexuality by a few researchers, the limited amount of scientific evidence available is too fragmentary to determine if it is significant or not. Most of the scientific findings strongly favor a genetic origin. At any rate, sexual orientation is something that people are born with and is not acquired.

Evidence Supporting a Genetic Cause of Homosexuality:

Twin Studies.

Multiple twin studies have demonstrated a hereditary component to homosexuality. Monozygotic twins (ones from a single ovum) share exactly the same genes, whereas dizygotic twins (one from two different ova) share 50% of their genes, the same as any non-twin sibling). The number of gays in the U.S. Population is 3-4% for males and 1-2% for females.

Since monozygotic (also called identical) twins share identical genes, the chance of a match in sexual preference should be evident if heredity is operative. In the case of dizygotic (also called fraternal) twins, since only half the genes is shared, a figure of about one half of that for identical twins would be expected.

As examples, the results of two studies by Bailey and Pillard, are presented, but other twin studies have yielded similar results. One study was limited to males where it was revealed that if one identical twin was gay, the other was gay 52% of the time. If one fraternal twin was gay,the remaining twin was gay 22% of the time. In the other twin study, which was limited to females, if one identical twin was gay, the other one was also gay 48% of the time, and if one fraternal twin was gay, the other was also 16% of the time.

Even though the observation that the approximately 50% concordance in homosexuality in identical twins points to a strong heredity component, this figure could also suggest that genetics  might not be the entire explanation. But this 50% figure is still consistent with genetics  alone being the cause. Two examples of hereditary diseases in identical twins will show why.

If identical twins have the genes for Huntington’s Disease, both twins will develop the disease 100% of the time. However, if identical twins have the genes for Type 1 Diabetes, both will have only a 30% chance of developing the disorder. Therefore, even though identical twins have identical genes, the manifesting of the genes can vary, a process called variable penetrance, a phenomenon that is poorly understood at this time.

Animal Studies.

- Recent genetic studies on the geneticists’  favorite subject, the fruit fly (drosophila melanogaster), has provided valuable information to scientists about homosexuality. The fruit fly has a recognizable match with 75% of known human disease genes and has contributed valuable genetic information to scientists for almost 100 years.  Manipulation of a single gene called “fruitless” induces homosexual behavior in either sex. Normally, a male fruit flies’ ritual for the seduction of the female fruit is dramatic and involves such maneuvers as tapping her with his foreleg, extending and vibrating his wings in song, and then brazenly licking her. This male sexual behavior is exactly reproduced in females with the manipulation of the “fruitless” gene. In another recent study on fruit flies, David Featherstone and coworkers discovered that a mutation in a gene they call “genderblind” turns fruitflies bisexual.

- Studies on animal sexual behavior have been revealing. Homosexual behavior has now been well documented in 500 animal species.

Anatomical and Physiological Differences in Gays.

These associated findings are further evidence that homosexuality is biological, something that people are born with. I’ll just list the differences since the list is long:

- Gays are 39% more likely to be left-handed than straight people.

- Men typically have a ring finger that is longer than the index finger, while in women the two are about the same length. Two studies have shown that in lesbians the ratios between the two fingers are similar to those in men.

- One study compared fingerprints in men of the thumb and index fingers. 30% of homosexuals had an excess of ridges on the left hand, whereas only 14% of heterosexuals did. This finding is particularly interesting since fingerprints are fully determined in a fetus before the 17^th week of pregnancy and do not change thereafter throughout life.

- The startle response (eye blink following a loud noise) is masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.)

- Gay and non-gay people emit different armpit odors.

- There are anatomical and physiological differences in the brain: The average size of the INAH-3 (a part of the hypothalamus) in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as the significantly smaller one of women. The anterior commissure is larger in gay men than in non-gay men. Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material. Gay and non-gay brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).

Behavioral traits.

To varying degrees, gays often show characteristic behavior that appears to be a biological part of their nature. Gay males tend to show variable degrees of feminine behavior and lesbians variable degrees of masculine behavior, and these findings often are discernible in early childhood.  Of course, in some cases gay individuals show behavior that is indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

Casual observers can often judge sexual orientation with very limited information. A 1999 Harvard study found that by simply looking at photographs of seated strangers that undergraduates could identify the sexual orientation accurately 55% of the time. In another study, 112 undergraduate observers saw only the backsides of subjects as they walked on treadmills. The observers correctly identified the sexual orientation of males with over 60% accuracy, but the categorization of women did not exceed chance. As another example of readily available behavioral clues to a person’s sexual orientation, a researcher, Gerulf Rieger shows videotapes of men and women discussing the weather, and observers are able to tell who is gay and who is straight with great accuracy. Rieger states that “even within seconds, people are pretty good at figuring out who’s gay and who’s not.” Rieger thinks his research points to genetics as the source of sexual orientation.

Finally, as has been shown, scientific studies strongly indicate that homosexual orientation is something people are born with. Available evidence favors mostly a genetic cause but some intrauterine effect before birth can not be excluded. As genetic research continues to advance, considerable light should be shed on the subject. A single gay gene is very unlikely to be found to explain a phenomenon as complex as human sexuality. Most likely the interaction of multiple genes will be involved.

Understanding the science behind homosexuality is no mere academic exercise but has practical consequences. Studies have shown that the public is more tolerant of gays and legislators are more likely to pass laws protecting their rights when the scientific facts are known.

Related posts:

1. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 2
2. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 1

Does religion exert a positive influence on people’s lives? The answer to this question likely depends on how we define the variables. Yet is it truly religion exerting the influence, when we get right down to it, or something more mundane: social values, adopting a meaningful life narrative, community involvement, pleasing rituals, what? A huge problem with the bulk of the studies into the influence of religion is the lack of adequate secular controls. It is assumed that there is religion and then there is nothing. But are there no secular social values, no non-religious community involvement, no god-free pleasing rituals?

Of course there are. To overlook the fact is to practice incomplete science and to perhaps mislead yourself and others.

A recent study purporting to demonstrate a positive influence of religion (religiosity) got me thinking about the topic. Or maybe “stewing” is the more accurate word.

In, Greater religiosity during adolescence may protect against developing problem alcohol use, we learn -

[P]eople with a religious background may be less likely to express alcohol-related phenotypes than those from nonreligious backgrounds.

Sounds quite science-y. But what is meant by religious background? Belief in a god and the strength of that belief? Church attendance? Engaging in religious behaviors such as prayer and Bible reading? Self-reported importance of religion to one’s worldview? What?

Religiosity was measured using the Value on Religion Scale

Aha! I guess. A quick Google search led me to a .pdf that contained details about that scale (in the very same semi-bogus study I critiqued in a Skeptic magazine article a few years back). Subjects rated their strength of agreement with these items:

“To believe in God,” “To be able to rely on religious teachings when you have a problem,” “To be able to turn to prayer when you’re facing a personal problem,” and “To rely on your religious beliefs as a guide for day-to-day living.” [source]

That’s quite a range of thoughts. Total strength of agreement with these statements produced the religiosity measure.

An author of the study went on record with this:

“Our study showed that genetic factors could influence problem alcohol use more in nonreligious adolescents than adolescents with a greater religious outlook,” said Button. “This attenuation in religious participants indicates that religiosity exerted a strong enough influence over the behavior of religious individuals to override any genetic predisposition. [all bolds mine]

Wow! With religion you can overcome any genetic predisposition . . . for alcohol use, anyway. Or at least make it less-likely you succumb to genetic predisposition. As was the actual study finding. (How much less likely is a very good question.) But hey, why quibble?

But then there was this curious element:

The same was not true for young adults, however, for whom the genetic influence was consistent across levels of religiosity.”

Button noted that she and her colleagues had expected to find a similar pattern of effects in adolescents and young adults.

Hmm. Seems to me the religiosity measured was more situational than committed, more environmental than integral to the individual.

My guess is that the researchers actually indirectly measured some effect of parenting or family/home life. Thus, once out of the house — as most individuals experience in the transition from adolescence to adulthood — the effect disappeared. Would a real religious influence evaporate like that between neighboring age groups? I wonder.

Now it’s your turn to exercise your critical thinking skills. See what flaws you can spot in this final article paragraph (and how it relates to the claimed results).

“These findings provide evidence that problem alcohol use in adolescents is subject to controlling influences associated with religiosity, even when genetic risks are present,” said Button. “Thus, adolescents who are raised to value religious concepts are less likely to develop problems with alcohol use, even in the presence of a genetic predisposition for doing so.” [bolds mine]

(Hint: think of a shell game in which a ball is hidden beneath one cup and then, with slight of hand, moved to beneath another.)

Ready, set, think.

—

[simultaneously posted at my home blog: 360 Degree Skeptic]

Related posts:

1. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

Related posts:

1. What Science Says about Morality

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

The word “faith” is short and appears innocuous. But it has caused much human misery in history and continues to do so presently. A good first step in addressing this problem is to appreciate that “faith,” like most words, has multiple meanings. The type of faith discussed in this essay will be confined to religious beliefs without supporting logic and evidence. The explanation of how faith developed will be about the Christian religion, but many of the concepts apply to religion in general.

The idea that any conclusion should be reached without evidence is uniquely bizarre. A person who professes belief without evidence in other than a religious context is thought of as a fool. But in the case of religion, turning a fatal logical flaw into a concept that is revered and held in awe is a remarkable achievement.

Faith is the very lifeblood of religion. Faith gives people license to believe in the imaginary world of the supernatural where the dead rise out of their graves and snakes talk. It provides almost impregnable protection for religion against critical inquiry. Faith is the ultimate cop-out. Completely absurd and contradictory beliefs can be justified. If it weren’t for faith, religion could not exist. Doctrine provides the foundation of religion but without faith the doctrine would be meaningless. Lacking faith, we would never have seen the many abuses associated with monotheistic religion throughout history.

But how did such a foolish idea as religious faith ever come to be regarded with such awe and respect?

One of the major factors promoting faith was the Bible. Faith was mentioned only twice in the Old Testament but several hundred times in the New Testament. Jesus reportedly said, “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible.” And Paul states that faith is the only way a person can be “saved” when he said, “For by grace are ye saved through faith … not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the truth would be revealed through logic and evidence. In fact, it consistently discourages the acquisition of knowledge by these means and instead touts the superiority of knowledge arrived at by faith. The story about Thomas the doubter is a dramatic example of the glorifying of faith. Alone among the disciples, Thomas asked for proof of the extraordinary claim of resurrection, a request that most rational people would consider quite reasonable. Jesus accepted the challenge and provided proof that satisfied Thomas. But then in John 20:29 Christ demolishes the idea of religious skepticism and elevates faith to a profound virtue with this irrational statement: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” With this passage, Christians would hence regard anyone who exhibited skepticism about their religious claims as “a doubting Thomas.” Religious skepticism became a sin.

Tertullian (c.160-c.230), a Roman theologian and Christian, pushed the virtue of faith to its ultimate. He was the son of a centurion and well educated, especially in law. Tertullian is mainly famous for the quote: “It is certain because it is impossible,” often incorrectly quoted as, “I believe it because it is impossible.” In other words, he thought that if a religious belief seemed impossible, that seeming impossibility made it certain. He believed that the more impossible a religious belief seemed, the more it would strengthen a person’s faith.

Christian leaders through the centuries further fortified the idea of the power of faith by continued propaganda. However, as science in the last few centuries began explaining the working of the Universe through natural means and religion began losing every battle with science, faith began taking a beating.

To counteract this negative trend, conservative Christians staged a series of meetings called the “Niagara Conferences.” The people attracted to the cause were generally poor, rural, and not well educated. It was ironic that two rich, urban, well educated oil tycoons, the Stewart brothers, Lyman and Milton, gave the movement its biggest boost. They financed a series of twelve booklets entitled The Fundamentals (1910-1915). In these booklets the five basic fundamentals necessary to be a “true” Christian were publicized, the ones that had been agreed on at the Niagara conferences. These fundamentals included:

(1) The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
(2) The complete inerrancy of the Bible
(3) Christ’s atonement for the sins of man on the cross
(4) The divine status of Christ
(5) The Resurrection and the Second Coming of Christ.

Christian Fundamentalists with their dogmatic claims were now in a position to answer the conclusions reached by scientific (critical) thinking. Since the Fundamentalists’ conclusions were based on an inerrant source, the direct word of God as revealed in the Bible, then henceforth their conclusions would trump any amount of conclusions reached by logic and evidence. And what was it that rendered this Fundamentalist doctrine valid? Faith, of course. Faith and only faith.

And this strategy from a numerical standpoint has been successful. The Christian Fundamentalist denominations, energized by the renewed empowerment of faith, have been the most rapidly growing of all Christian denominations.

This renewed glorification of faith produces major problems for society. Religious claims based on faith cannot be resolved. The citing of an infallible source ends all rational discussion and sets one group in society against another, or is even divisive within a religious group itself.

A few examples show the detrimental effects of faith-based decisions:

Evolution. Despite being one of the most thoroughly documented conclusions in all of science, Christian Fundamentalists return again and again with some version of Creationism. Belief in Creationism is also behind Fundamentalists’ denial of the scientifically well documented “big bang theory.” In effect, they are claiming that the Bible is a scientific textbook. The denial of the scientific evidence can lead to a type of child abuse since their children don’t receive proper scientific educations and are launched into a scientifically-oriented society with a major handicap.

Homosexuality. There is now much scientific evidence that sexual preference is inborn. But those holding faith-based conclusions don’t want to hear any of the scientific information. They want to hear only what the Bible says. Again, they are using the Bible as a pseudo-scientific textbook.

Abortion and Stem Cell Therapy. Whatever one’s conclusions are on these subjects, they should not be based on an embryo having a soul. There is no scientific evidence that a soul exists in an embryo or any other living organism.

Women’s Rights. The Biblical view is the one that those relying on religious faith use as a guideline for the treatment of women. They show little interest in the scientific studies about women.

Science. Although those using faith-based conclusions readily accept the benefits provided by science, they otherwise have an antipathy toward it since scientific conclusions are regularly in conflict with their faith-based ones. They tend to minimize scientific study for themselves and their children.

Church-State Separation. The true believers have faith in the infallibility of their beliefs and see no reason why they shouldn’t impose them on everybody. They are just doing God’s work.

Abstinence-Only Programs for Teenagers. The faith-based conclusion is that premarital sex is sinful and that abstinence-only programs should be promoted using religious zealotry. Recent scientific studies show that these programs simply don’t work.

Although Christian Fundamentalists rely on and glorify faith more than moderate Christian denominations, the latter also base their religious conclusions on faith, but usually with less dogmatism. Nevertheless, moderate Christians also help perpetuate the idea that faith is a valid way to arrive at truth about the material Universe. In doing so, they encourage the extreme views of the Christian Fundamentalists by seldom criticizing these views.

Most faith-based religious conclusions that are detrimental to society involve the material Universe, not what many freethinkers would regard as an imaginary spiritual region. Science with its use of logic and evidence has earned the right to be the sole interpreter of how the material Universe works by always being right in its numerous fights with religion.

Imagine an ideal world where people realize that faith is a bogus way to reach any valid conclusion, even a religious one. Conflicts would only be resolved using logic and evidence. No longer would debates end when a believer slammed a faith-based door in another person’s face. This dream can be realized by explaining to the media and the public the reasons that conclusions based on faith are irrational and detrimental to society.

Related posts:

1. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

I was riding along on the flotsam and jetsam of topical hyperlinks from website to website, when I came across an article at ezinesarticles.com titled, “Thimerosal: Autism and Mercury Poisoning Side Effects?” by Margaret Wommack. I have had about enough of misleading journalism, pop culture, and con artists who are victimizing the public at large.

In Wommack’s case I can’t tell if she is just ignorant of the science and is practicing lazy journalism by not vetting her information, or if she is a willing shill of the anti-vax cabal. She is a small voice in the growing chorus of the ignorant and the ignoble crying wolf on the vaccination front.

In the offending article, thimerosal is wrongly set up as the culprit for all sorts of nasty conditions including autism. Then something strange happens; the author switches up and puts the blame on mercury.

“Mercury causes such concern because it is the second most toxic element on earth and has been known to cause learning disabilities, autism, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis (MS), fibromyalgia, lupus, arthritis, depression, and bipolar disorder. Even seemingly small amounts of mercury have major, deadly consequences and mercury poisoning affects the kidneys and the nervous system. Other effects of mercury poisoning include burning feeling in the limbs, mental side effects such as loss of memory, vision and hearing, other psychological effects, paralysis, congenital malformations, kidney failure, and even death.”

Now it is true that thimerosal is a type of mercury, but like alcohol there are different types and one should not confuse methyl and ethyl while partying. Thimerosal is found in the environment and at normal levels is completely safe. Thimerosal that was used in vaccines was found to be way below normal environmental exposure for babies. As reported in Neurologica Blog on Jan 29, 2009.

“A new study published yesterday (Monday) in the journal Pediatrics provides more evidence against any link between thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative in some vaccines) and autism or other neurological disorders. This study adds to the large and growing body of scientific evidence for the safety of vaccines, and contradicting the claims of the anti-vaccine movement that vaccines cause autism.”

Furthermore, while there is no scientific evidence that links thimerosal and autism,

“Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.” (cdc.gov/vaccinesafety)

Yet Wommack claims that “The continued use of mercury-based preservatives in vaccines is dangerous and drug companies know it.” What is her evidence? Where are her citations? Misleading the public on this issue has real consequences. Concerned parents are erroneously choosing not to vaccinate their children and some of those kids will get sick and others will be infected and many may die.

Many childhood diseases have been virtually eliminated by safe and efficacious vaccines for decades now. Bad and undisciplined journalism as well as pop-cultured misinformation is endangering our society.

According to the CDC, the leading cause of childhood deaths now are car accidents. In 2005 a tragic 1,335 children between 0-14 years old died. Keep referring back to that horrible number as you read the next paragraph.

Successes of vaccines are staggeringly good, and lack of societal memories of a time before the immunizations were mandatory have rendered us unable to recognize such remarkable advancements.

• Smallpox in the US afflicted tens of thousands of children every year, leaving them scarred, ill, or dead.
• Fifty thousand children a year contracted Polio before the vaccine, including 13,000-20,000 of the paralytic kind. Thousands of children were confined to leg braces, others were destined to crutches or wheel chairs. Many were confined to the iron lung as the only means of treatment.
• If exposed to Measles, 90% of any unvaccinated population will contract the virus.  Before 1963 more than 90% of Americans by the time they were 15-years-old had the disease, causing 500 deaths a year.  The Vax worked so well that there were 894,134 cases in 1941 to 89 cases in 1998 and 44 cases in 2002.
• Then there is the success over Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Diphtheria, Hib, Rubella, Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Mumps, Varicella (chickenpox). These childhood diseases each claimed from 100 to 10,000 young lives per year in the US alone (ecbt.org).

Modern science and real medicine have saved literally millions of lives through vaccines.  Yet there are advocates out there who either haven’t done their homework or are stupid and want these horrible diseases to return.

Educate a doubter and save the children.

Related posts:

1. Education is Not Just for Kids

[The second and third large, prospective, randomized, double blind studies that pass muster as valid scientific investigations of the effects of prayer on human health.]

The second study that appears to meet the “gold standard” for scientific studies was one entitled “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit.” It was published in the October 25, 1999 edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine, and the investigators were William S. Harris, Ph.D. plus eight others of the Mid America Heart Institute. The study was done at Saint Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri, a private, university-associated hospital.

The investigators stated: ”The purpose of the present study was to attempt to replicate Byrd’s findings by testing the hypothesis that patients who are unknowingly and remotely prayed for by blinded intercessors will experience fewer complications and have a shorter hospital stay than patients not receiving such prayer.” The intercessors, five to pray for each patient (compared to three to seven in Byrd’s study), were to pray for “a speedy recovery with no complications” plus “anything else that seemed appropriate to them.”  1013 patients were randomized, 484 to the prayer group, and 529 to the usual care group. After removal of those patients who spent less than 24 hours in the CCU (prayer was not started until 24 hours after admission), 524 remained in the usual care group and 466 in the prayer group (I’ll mention this high drop-out rate in the prayer group shortly).

A list of events after entry into the study was compiled, much like the one in the Byrd study, but with 34 events instead of the 26 in the Byrd Study. Again, a scheme was devised to evaluate the overall hospital course, a totally new and untested system, but different from the also new and untested one devised by Byrd. The Harris study scheme was called the Mid America Heart Institute-Cardiac Care Unit (MAHI-CCU) Scoring System, and its criteria are presented in “Table 1” of his paper.

The only finding in the Harris study that indicated the prayer group outperformed the control group was in using the MAHI-CCU Scoring System and then only at a probability level of (.04), a figure very close to the cut-off level of (.05).

The Harris study is a much better study than the Byrd study because the number of patients is larger, it appears to be completely blinded, and the degree of religiosity of the investigators appears to be less (although Dr. Harris supposedly supports the idea of “intelligent design”). Nevertheless, scientific investigators have noted flaws: 1) As already noted, the MAHI-CCU Scoring System has never been previously scientifically validated. Without such validation, any result produced by it is subject to question. 2) The much higher dropout rate in the first 24 hours in the prayer group is a very serious criticism of the study. The statistical probability that this finding would appear by chance is (.001), or 1 chance in a 1000, a statistically very significant finding.  This higher dropout rate, since the mortality rate in the two groups was the same, suggests that the prayer group, for unknown reasons, was not quite as ill as the control group since patients discharged within a day often turn out not to have serious problems. If they were a little less ill at the start, we would expect them to have a more favorable course.  3) The conclusions stated in this investigation, as I’ll describe shortly, are not justified by the data.

Positive findings in a scientific study are not considered valid until replicated by independent investigators. So did the Harris study replicate the positive findings of the Byrd study? The answer is a resounding no! In the 6 items in the list of 26 that I previously described in the Byrd study where the prayed for group did better, not one of these items was statistically significant in the Harris study. When the Harris study subjected its data to the same scheme that Byrd had used in his evaluation of the hospital course of the patients (Table 3 in the Byrd study), the Harris study found the difference between the two groups of (.29) was not even close to being statistically significant. The Harris study did replicate the negative findings from the Byrd Study. There was no statistically difference in days in the CCU, days in the hospital, or mortality.

In remarks at the end of the Harris study, the investigators stated: “Our findings support Byrd’s conclusions despite the fact that we could not document an effect of prayer using his scoring system.” This statement is erroneous. Their findings not only don’t support Byrd’s conclusions but directly refute them. How the editorial board that agreed to publish this article allowed this statement to stand is a mystery to me.

The most recent study, and, I believe, the best designed one, was published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in December, 2001, and was entitled “Intercessory Prayer and Cardiovascular Disease Progression in a Coronary Care Unit Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” This third “gold standard” study should settle the matter once and for all scientifically. The investigators that wrote the study were Jennifer M. Aviles, MD and six others. This trial was done on patients immediately after discharge from the Coronary Care Unit, a time when the intensity of extraneous intercessory praying by family and friends would generally be waning.

Here is their summary of the findings: “Patients and Methods: In this randomized controlled trial conducted between 1997 and 1999, a total of 799 coronary care unit patients were randomized at hospital discharge to the intercessory prayer group or to the control group. … The primary end point after 26 weeks was any of the following: death, cardiac arrest, rehospitalization for cardiovascular disease, coronary revascularization, or an emergency department visit for cardiovascular disease. Patients were divided into a high-group based on the presence of any of 5 risk factors (age > or = 70 years, diabetes mellitus, prior myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease) or a low-risk group (absence of risk factors) for subsequent primary events.” The investigators summarized their findings as follows: “Conclusions: As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit.” Not even one difference showed up between the control group and the prayed-for group.

The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs. But now that you have the scientific information, don’t let the statement that the efficacy of prayer has been proven by scientific studies go unchallenged. It’s simply untrue.

Related posts:

1. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 1
2. Scientific Evidence on Homosexuality
3. The Skeptrack Experience at DragonCon – Part 2